Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Rainkiss
Incidentally... As y'all know, Massachusetts is the only state in which gays can legally marry... Interesting article analyzing marriage and divorce rates.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6519

[/*]

I wonder what the average age is for 1st time marriages is in Arkansas and Oklahoma vs. Massachusetts.

[lady]

Teenagers can marry with parents consent at any age I guess. The 50yr old men in these cults can only legally marry ONE woman, they force these children to become their wives Illegally and make them pregnant as young as 13years old.
This is sick and must be stopped. These people need extended therapy and psychological help.

[Jay]

Originally posted by lady
Teenagers can marry with parents consent at any age I guess. [/*]



State by state list, if current, probably is:

Texas is 16 with parental consent, with 2 footnotes though:


http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

[Rainkiss]

Doesn't really matter, since these girls were "married" off without a license.

Texas, however, DOES recognize common-law, or informal marriages.

Common Law Marriages (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm)

Texas calls it an "informal marriage," rather than a common-law marriage. Under § 2.401 of the Texas Family Code, an informal marriage can be established either by declaration (registering at the county courthouse without having a ceremony), or by meeting a 3-prong test showing evidence of (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married. A 1995 update adds an evidentiary presumption that there was no marriage if no suit for proof of marriage is filed within two years of the date the parties separated and ceased living together.

I'm thinking that, if they find records that these men "married" the young women, they count as informal marriage, and bigamy/polygamy charges are going to stick. Anybody out there with more legal savvy have an opinion?

[Jay]

Originally posted by Rainkiss
Doesn't really matter, since these girls were "married" off without a license.

Texas, however, DOES recognize common-law, or informal marriages.

Common Law Marriages (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/commonlaw.htm)



I'm thinking that, if they find records that these men "married" the young women, they count as informal marriage, and bigamy/polygamy charges are going to stick. Anybody out there with more legal savvy have an opinion? [/*]

True, a few states still do recognize common law, but NOT at any age that would conflict with a licensed marriage.

IOW, you can't common law live with someone at age 12.

According to this link, the age of NON marriage consensual sex in TX is 17:

http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htm

If the men claim to be married even to just ONE underage girl and they were/are pregnant, the common law argument will fall as a defense and sexual battery charges could be brought!!

[John7878]

For anyone really upset about this situation in America, you might want to skip this Dan Rather report of whats happening to women & girls in India.


Dan Rather Reports

Fri., Apr. 25th 11:30 AM ET Wal-Mart Goes To Washington - Newly obtained videotape takes viewers behind the corporate curtain at the largest corporation in the world, Wal-Mart. And thousands of Dalit women in India are forced into a life sentence of sexual servitude by religious custom.

Talk about a 'cult'!



:cuss:

[cloe23]

Originally posted by Carol25

John, I know it sounds so harsh for authorities to take the mothers away from the children but they had to if the children were going to tell them anything that that was really going on at the compound. These mothers are so brainwashed and in turn brainwash their children. That is their job. How could you interview a child when he begins to say something and mother is there to stop him, interrupt or give him the signal to be quiet or else? Didn't you see the interviews with the mothers how they wouldn't answer any questions except about "we want our children back?"
I LE is going to find out the truth (which could go either way) they need to have the freedom to ask questions and have the questions answered.
Perhaps then then they could be reunited again. I hope they can, without the person who is doing the abusing.
Wouldn't you feel better about this short time of indignity and grief for the sake of possibly hundreds of others being raped and abused? [/*]

Very nicely said, How come some posters are so level headed and then other are so irrate? (ME) My fingers just go nuts. What about the women with three little boys? Have they all been sodomized(SP?) Kinda supports the link about how Seth Jeffs what caught, arressted and convicted for hiring a male prostitude, for sexual pleasure? And this the man that has been taped coming out of the TX courthouse offering supporting acts for these women to get their little boys back( Well Darn Skippy he is) What is he going to do, with all the young boys gone? Use an elder man? OH MY FOR THE LOVE OF CHILDREN!!!!
Sorry for venting, I havent even had my first cup of coffee.

To my prior knowledge Child protective services are alwasy being critisied for NOT providing support and the children continue to be abuse many killed. So I say go Child Protective Services! They have many many lawyers on there behalf, something is wrong here or this wouldnt be going down.:patriot:

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by cloe23


Very nicely said, How come some posters are so level headed and then other are so irrate? (ME) My fingers just go nuts.
*snippy... it's the previous post, go up and read it. ;) *
[/*]

While passion and rage are emotions that can give a lot of energy to your actions, they're useless without a direction... and it's hard to find the proper direction if all you can see is red.

The trick is to channel your anger, and see what you can do to help. Me, I think the Texas authorities are doing just fine, so there's not much I can do other than to keep up on developments, and see if I need to start writing letters to Congress if I see anything out of hand going on.

I notice the ACLU has been very quiet, for them, on this whole mess. Anybody hear anything from them?

[spirit07]

I almost started a new thread because I am very curious as to the role of first wives and the various roles women might play in the hierarchy of the sect (or a sect like this one). Too many threads already though, so I am putting this here since this thread seems to be a general about FLDS.

This is an excerpt from a fairly long story about a woman named Debbie who married Ray Blackmore (Canada, Bountiful). The woman in the story, Anna Mae, is his first wife.


"Like Sarah, Anna Mae never gave up believing that she was the one true wife and that her favourite son, Winston, was Ray's only true heir.

Ray didn't consummate the marriage that night. Despite Anna Mae's symbolic approval of the marriage, her weeping in the room next to the newlyweds' was so loud and went on for so long that Ray left his child bride and spent the night comforting 47-year-old Anna Mae. It was a prophetic start to Debbie's lonely, difficult and even dangerous life as a sister-wife.

Inside Ray Blackmore's home, there was no one more powerful than Anna Mae and no one more protective of him as he grew weaker, both from the cancer and from the intensive treatments that he had opted for rather than depending on faith alone. Anna Mae was the alpha wife and Mother Superior. Even though all the wives did not live in the same house, Anna Mae doled out their chores and responsibilities. She disciplined the sister-wives, and reminded them of their duty to obey their husband and her. The other wives had to make appointments through her to see their husband. Anna Mae had insisted that Ray's bedroom be in the house where she lived, and she kept the schedule of whose turn it was to sleep with him.

She charted the wives' menstrual cycles to ensure that they were only having sex with Ray when they were most fertile, since sex for pleasure without the goal of procreation is a sin. Anna Mae didn't only regulate the wives' access to Ray, she was his sleeping dragon. She spent nights on the floor outside her husband's room while one of the other wives slept with Ray.

Ray's 31 children were also scattered in several different houses and Anna Mae acted as gatekeeper to them as well, regulating their access to their father. That, of course, meant that the door was always open for Winston to spend as much time as possible with his father. Still, arranging time alone wasn't simple. Everybody wanted a few minutes with Ray -- his children, his wives and priesthood men, who were becoming increasingly dependent on Ray, not only for their salvation but also for their homes and their jobs. Plus, Ray had a ranch to run in order to pay for food and clothing for six wives and 31 children."

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/features/polygamy/story.html?id=a40ac6d2-dc83-4cf4-ae26-d75ff983e4fc&k=39424&p=3

[evalles]

Originally posted by John7878
I don't know, maybe its me.

But thats exactly my point.

If someone calls the cops and tells them this is what you have been doing.

Do you want them to follow the letter of the law when dealing with you??

See, some people that are accused ARE guilty, but SOME are not.

And thats all I'm suggesting is that everyone is treated equal under the law and that the laws are followed.
__________________________________________________ __

This sums everything up.
The constitution is in place to protect people from the government, not the other way around.
I don't think kids should be removed on suspicion alone.
If there were five pregnant teens, there were five mothers that needed to be investigated,IMO.
The more I see of the FLDS, the more my stomach turns, but they are still entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

If they don't want the parents with the child while they're questioning him, IMO there needs to be safeguards put in place to
protect the parents/childrens rights.
I think there should be a neutral third party present and the conversations should be taped to insure an accurate account of events and would reveal any coercion by the party doing the questioning. Copies should be provided to the parents and their attorneys.

There needs to be safeguards in place to protect the accused.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles
This sums everything up.
The constitution is in place to protect people from the government, not the other way around.
I don't think kids should be removed on suspicion alone.
If there were five pregnant teens, there were five mothers that needed to be investigated,IMO.
The more I see of the FLDS, the more my stomach turns, but they are still entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

If they don't want the parents with the child while they're questioning him, IMO there needs to be safeguards put in place to protect the parents/childrens rights.
I think there should be a neutral third party present and the conversations should be taped to insure an accurate account of events and would reveal any coercion by the party doing the questioning. Copies should be provided to the parents and their attorneys.

There needs to be safeguards in place to protect the accused.

I believe the attorneys appointed for each of the children should count as the neutral third party you want. I don't know if the interviews are being taped, but I hope so.

Copies should certainly be provided to the attorneys of the children, and, through the process of discovery, to the attorneys of the parents, once those parents are properly identified.[/*] Given how evasive those who are actually answering questions have been, getting those identifications is crucial.

[lady]

The Authorities are doing a great job with this mess. It's mind boggling what needs to be done and it will take years.
Religions are not above the law and should be arrested and prosecuted when any crime against the law has been committed.

[evalles]

Originally posted by lady
The Authorities are doing a great job with this mess. It's mind boggling what needs to be done and it will take years.
Religions are not above the law and should be arrested and prosecuted when any crime against the law has been committed. [/*]

Yep, that's why two kids are missing and another is in intensive care.
Great Job.

[Details]

FLDS says they're missing, CPS says they are not. Between the two, FLDS is far more untrustworthy - they've got a lot of proven lies just in this one case - starting from the minute police walked on the compound, asked some men if there was a girl named "Sarah" there, and they said "No" (there are several girls named Sarah).

The one child in the ICU got dehydrated during a bus ride. Interesting, isn't it, that he had so little reserve as to get so sick just from a bus ride? It can't have been that bad - none of the other kids got sick at all from it.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
FLDS says they're missing, CPS says they are not. Between the two, FLDS is far more untrustworthy - they've got a lot of proven lies just in this one case - starting from the minute police walked on the compound, asked some men if there was a girl named "Sarah" there, and they said "No" (there are several girls named Sarah).

The one child in the ICU got dehydrated during a bus ride. Interesting, isn't it, that he had so little reserve as to get so sick just from a bus ride? It can't have been that bad - none of the other kids got sick at all from it. [/*]

I wonder how come nobody noticed ? They've been in the state's care for like 3 weeks right?
More untrustworthy than the goverment ?
Some people I'm sure will blame the parents, who haven't seen their kids in weeks. Dehydration can happen in a matter of a day or two.

[LLaFren]

Originally posted by evalles


Yep, that's why two kids are missing and another is in intensive care.
Great Job. [/*]

You need to chill, just because you have had a bad experience with CPS, that does not mean that all of them are bad.

As a foster parent, I have seen kids who were abused, as a parent, I've had my kids threaten to call and you know what?

I've told my kids to call, go right ahead and call, I offered to dial the number for them, but after listening to the foster kids, they figured out that their home life was not bad.

And the foster kids, out of the many (I do emergancy placements only for short term), I've had one (ONE) who had told a bogus story to CPS, and that was found out very quickly and she was sent home.

My cousin is totally different, he and his wife do long term placement and you know what, I called him and not once has he had a child that the abuse was not proven, while the whole time the parents were claiming CPS was targeting them (btw-he's in TX).

I belong to a group of foster parents, we do it because WE CARE, not for the money, not for the kudos, but for the kids.

I work for a drug and alcohol rehab facility, 6 months in-patient - court ordered. the women have no choice but to go or go to prison, we keep records, 95% of all women in treatment started using do to sexual abuse, to forget what happened.

You are taking your experience with CPS and making it seem like all foster parents are bad, and all group homes do nothing good.

GET OVER IT and accept that the news is what they can report due to the children being minors, and understand that the adult women in this sect are in just as much trouble as the children that have removed.

[LLaFren]

Guys, sorry for the spelling errors...:(

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
I wonder how come nobody noticed ? They've been in the state's care for like 3 weeks right?
More untrustworthy than the goverment ?
Some people I'm sure will blame the parents, who haven't seen their kids in weeks. Dehydration can happen in a matter of a day or two. [/*]Dehydration can happen far more quickly than that - especially with a little car sickness. Dehydration is a very few hours, less if you are throwing up. Faster still for little kids who have so little body mass.

Yes, more untrustworthy than the government - which usually does tell the truth. Only because so many are watching and pounce on every mistake or lie perhaps - but they normally do tell the truth. If they wanted to lie, it'd be easy enough to not tell the media the kid was in ICU.

[Details]

Originally posted by LLaFren
...And the foster kids, out of the many (I do emergancy placements only for short term), I've had one (ONE) who had told a bogus story to CPS, and that was found out very quickly and she was sent home.

My cousin is totally different, he and his wife do long term placement and you know what, I called him and not once has he had a child that the abuse was not proven, while the whole time the parents were claiming CPS was targeting them (btw-he's in TX)..... [/*]It's amazing how quickly abusers learn the manipulative tactics - claim targeting by biased people, always play the victim, blame everyone else, etc. It's always the same. They play innocent people so very well, almost better than the truely innocent do.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Dehydration can happen far more quickly than that - especially with a little car sickness. Dehydration is a very few hours, less if you are throwing up. Faster still for little kids who have so little body mass.

Yes, more untrustworthy than the government - which usually does tell the truth. Only because so many are watching and pounce on every mistake or lie perhaps - but they normally do tell the truth. If they wanted to lie, it'd be easy enough to not tell the media the kid was in ICU. [/*]

If the kid's in ICU, they knew that someone else would bring it to light anyway.

[LLaFren]

Thanks, essiemadge, I was afraid it was a rant, I noticed she/he had no response for what I posted.

My foster kids who are here right now (over 14, under 14 aren't allowed to watch anything but spongebob) are all totally for pulling the kids out of there.

All are grateful they are here (go figure?)

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
If the kid's in ICU, they knew that someone else would bring it to light anyway. [/*]Suuuuure they did. And the FLDS guys would have known that it'd be easy enough to find out that there was a "Sarah" there. But since calls can't confirm the presence of the child, seems to me that you are wrong on this one (as wrong as anyone can be in attempting to predict the unpredictable - either of us could be wrong, but with no alternate universe to find out - I've got to go with logic). This information didn't leak, and only what CPS said is out there - no report from a doctor or nurse, no anonymous source, no nothing.

[walton]

Originally posted by essiemadge


the poster named Walton on these boards is an excellent example of someone who uses their anger to send out the word of what is going on over and over with incredible patience. and all of her links and posts are informative and useful.
i guess i admire this because there are al l things i am not, i do get very angry and mad at the people who have let these things go on and on for so many years. [/*]

Heck essie I think it was you and grammy that have taught me.

I do get angry. I am angry that it had to take 100 plus years for some of these victims voices to be heard. I am disgusted that after being told about the abuses and hearing the pleas for help that those that could help didn't.

I am angry that there are so many people that are willing to follow a man/cult/religion that makes them turn on their own family.

I don't understand.

As you know I don't have a Church to call my own, but how can it be good if it makes a person feel so bad? Ceremonies with secret handshakes, secret names, talk of blood atonement, marrying young children to old men. Beds in temples on 1,2 or 3 floor. Makes no sense to me. People building walls, locking doors, keeping people in or out.

No matter what religion- there is that inner core part of a person that just knows. Maybe they don't know right away but somewhere along the line it just grabs a person and it says no, this isn't right.

But it doesn't explain those in position that haven't done anything but collect the checks. I wanna know who is sitting on a slant from a big ol fat wallet. I wanna know who has made money watching the victim numbers rise and continue to suck moneys from the govt. the tax payers. And I would love to see him sitting next to Warren Jeffs. jmo

I don't know how these mothers will be able to deal with the guilt later, but I think given the chance they will be just fine. They are a strong people. But they can't see if they are blind.

The kids will be fine as long as they have a choice. As long as they become a part of society instead of being locked up from society.

The kids need a chance to make a choice. jmo


There are so many people that say that Polygamy should be just about consenting adults. Polygamy rarely ever is about just the adults. again jmo

Here is 400 plus examples.

[evalles]

Originally posted by LLaFren


You need to chill, just because you have had a bad experience with CPS, that does not mean that all of them are bad.

As a foster parent, I have seen kids who were abused, as a parent, I've had my kids threaten to call and you know what?

I've told my kids to call, go right ahead and call, I offered to dial the number for them, but after listening to the foster kids, they figured out that their home life was not bad.

And the foster kids, out of the many (I do emergancy placements only for short term), I've had one (ONE) who had told a bogus story to CPS, and that was found out very quickly and she was sent home.

My cousin is totally different, he and his wife do long term placement and you know what, I called him and not once has he had a child that the abuse was not proven, while the whole time the parents were claiming CPS was targeting them (btw-he's in TX).

I belong to a group of foster parents, we do it because WE CARE, not for the money, not for the kudos, but for the kids.

I work for a drug and alcohol rehab facility, 6 months in-patient - court ordered. the women have no choice but to go or go to prison, we keep records, 95% of all women in treatment started using do to sexual abuse, to forget what happened.

You are taking your experience with CPS and making it seem like all foster parents are bad, and all group homes do nothing good.

GET OVER IT and accept that the news is what they can report due to the children being minors, and understand that the adult women in this sect are in just as much trouble as the children that have removed. [/*]

I never said that all foster parents are bad. Not all foster parents do it for the right reasons. Children are hurt by bad foster parents and bad CPS workers and they need to be held accountable.
I talked to a wonderful GAL who goes the extra mile to help the kids while at the same time respecting the families involved in the system.
She said that she's learned to not make decisions based only on what CPS workers tell her.
She talked about a CPS worker that told her a teenager had no family members to be placed with. The girl told her she had grandparents that she visited occaisionally, so the GAL asked the worker, who told her the grandparents didn't want her, the foster mother said the same thing. She called the grandparents, who told her that they'd always wanted her and had tried for months to get the worker to do a home study so that she could live with them. After she conducted the home study herself, the girl went to live with her grandparents. The good ones go the extra mile and don't just take someones word for it.

[LLaFren]

Originally posted by evalles


I never said that all foster parents are bad. Not all foster parents do it for the right reasons. Children are hurt by bad foster parents and bad CPS workers and they need to be held accountable.

Snipped
[/*]

I am not going there....

[John7878]

Originally posted by LLaFren

Children are hurt by bad foster parents and bad CPS workers and they need to be held accountable.


I am not going there.... [/*]


HUH?!?!?!

You mean if the parents are accused of abusing the kids, they should be taken away from their parents, by force if necessary, and the accusations investigated.

But if the CPS or foster parents are accused of the same thing they should NOT be held accountable!?!??!?

Whats wrong with THIS picture????


hammer

[LLaFren]

Go upthread John and read what I wrote before. I firmly believe all allegations of abuse need to be investigated. If I didn't the last thing I would be is a foster parent and counselor.

My issue is that that particular poster poses all CPS as bad and evil who are out to destroy families, whereas it's been my experience that the family was not working long before CPS stepped in.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by wandering

A woman named Kathleen was on LKL and said there were beatings and reported suicides that weren't really suicides, among the boys.

I wonder if this is one of them. [/*]

You make a good point..I found the article very disturbing.

The following quote is so very sad, this 5 to 6 year old child was being RAPED over and over again, by 3 grown men, with NO way to escape...
so SICK and EVIL......imo.

QUOTE:
The lawsuit filed by Brent Jeffs accused his uncle, Warren Jeffs, and two other men,
Warren's brothers Blaine and Leslie,
of MOLESTING him repeatedly more than a decade ago in the basement of a Sunday school the FLDS ran in Salt Lake City.

"On repeated occasions, defendant prophet Warren would enter the basement room where the children were located, find (Brent) and instruct him to come to a nearby lavatory," the suit alleges.

"While in the lavatory, defendant prophet, and/or defendant Blaine and/or defendant Leslie confronted (Brent) and instruction him to remove his clothes."

The suit claims that after Brent was undressed, the defendants told him it was "God's will" that he submit to one or all THREE of the men.

"Defendant prophet Warren then told (Brent) that these sodomizing activities were a way for (Brent) to 'become a man,' " the suit alleges.

"The defendant prophet Warren Jeffs admonished (Brent) that it was God's will that he not tell anyone - particularly his parents - about said activities."

Brent, now 21, was 5 and 6 years old
when he claims the serial molestations took place. ...moo

[John7878]

Originally posted by Devotion
Brent, now 21, was 5 and 6 years old
when he claims the serial molestations took place. ...moo [/*]

These guys should be on trial for these crimes too.

Originally posted by LLaFren
Go upthread John and read what I wrote before. I firmly believe all allegations of abuse need to be investigated. [/*]


Oh.....ok.......:patriot:

[Devotion]

Originally posted by lotty

Yes, it was Clayne Jeffs that commited suicide.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy225.html
:mad:
[/*]

Jmo....Suicide is so sad, what pushed this young man over the edge?

Brent, Now 21, was 5 and 6 years old when he claims the serial molestations took place.

His attorneys said in the suit that he "decided to come forward with this information after his brother,

Clayne, who lived in the same FLDS community, committed suicide."

[Vinnie]

Yesterday, I read this portion of a post from Grammybear: "Yes the mormons did have plural marriages at one time, this was partially in part to coming to Utah. People died very young back then with various illnesses and such. This was to assure that young widows and children were taken care of. After the church took a stand on plural marriage is when these other splinter groups started their own religions elsewhere."

Groan! What revisionism! 1) Attributing polygamy to the welfare of widows and young children. Bah! The TRUTH: Joe Smith was a horny fellow and he was having affairs. He figured he was going to be caught and would lose his precious power, position, and financial support, so he had to produce a revelation to back his lifestyle. 2) Indicating "splinter groups" "started their own religions". The TRUTH: the "splinter groups" are simply being true to the teachings of Joe & Brigham.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Yesterday, I read this portion of a post from Grammybear: "Yes the mormons did have plural marriages at one time, this was partially in part to coming to Utah. People died very young back then with various illnesses and such. This was to assure that young widows and children were taken care of. After the church took a stand on plural marriage is when these other splinter groups started their own religions elsewhere."

Groan! What revisionism! 1) Attributing polygamy to the welfare of widows and young children. Bah! The TRUTH: Joe Smith was a horny fellow and he was having affairs. He figured he was going to be caught and would lose his precious power, position, and financial support, so he had to produce a revelation to back his lifestyle. 2) Indicating "splinter groups" "started their own religions". The TRUTH: the "splinter groups" are simply being true to the teachings of Joe & Brigham. [/*]

Hmmm, my great grandfather and great great grandfather lost wives. One of them had 3 wives, the other had four wives during their lifetime. The difference is they were not married to these wives at the same time.

Yes, back in that time, family took in widow and their children, but they did not marry them or have sexual relations with them. They provided a place for them to live until they were married again.

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
HUH?!?!?!

You mean if the parents are accused of abusing the kids, they should be taken away from their parents, by force if necessary, and the accusations investigated.

But if the CPS or foster parents are accused of the same thing they should NOT be held accountable!?!??!?

Whats wrong with THIS picture????


hammer [/*]What alternate universe's post are you reading? She said they SHOULD be held accountable. Where in the world did you find the word "not"?

[evalles]

I found a blog on Joseph Smith and it appeats that not all of his followers held him in such high esteem.
The people closest to Smith while he lived also condemned his behavior. Oliver Cowdery recognized Smith's affair with a 16 year-old girl as not only inappropriate, but as "nasty" and "filthy."
Joseph Smith's OWN wife after finding out later from a mutual friend that Joseph's tomcatting was greater than she had known, said "he was worthy of the death he died!"
This is from her biography Mormon Enigma.

Mormon Enigma according to Deseret books is the bestselling biography of Emma Hale Smith, wife of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. It was Joseph Smith who announced that an angel of the Lord had commanded him to introduce a 'new order of marriage.' And it was Emma Hale Smith who confronted the practice of polygamy head on.
As the authors note in their introduction, "Early leaders in Utah castigated Emma from their pulpits for opposing Brigham Young and the practice of polygamy, and for lending support to the Reorganization. As these attitudes filtered down through the years, Emma was virtually written out of official Utah histories.

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
These guys should be on trial for these crimes too. [/*]There was a lawsuit. One problem with child molestation - many states have a statute of limitations that makes it very difficult to get a criminal trial. If the parents don't bring it - if the child takes some years to grow up enough to talk, takes awhile even as an adult to be able to speak of it - all that's left is a civil lawsuit. That was filed, and won.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
It's amazing how quickly abusers learn the manipulative tactics - claim targeting by biased people, always play the victim, blame everyone else, etc. It's always the same. They play innocent people so very well, almost better than the truely innocent do. [/*]


Maybe they're not abusers, maybe they are victims that have been targeted by biased people.




"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

[Vinnie]

Katydid, remarrying after the death of a spouse isn't polygamy. What Joe Smith & Brigham Young advocated was having multiple wives AT THE SAME TIME.

The documents of the LDS church STILL state that the only way a man can achieve godhood is by having multiple wives. It's the fundamentalists who are holding to the teachings of their founder.

Joe's first affair was with Fannie Alger, a pretty teenager who lived with Joseph and Emma. Emma was described as "furious" about it, and she drove the girl away.

His affair with Fannie occurred in 1837, around 4 years before his plural marriage revelation.

At least 9 of the "wives" of Joseph Smith were already married to other men, and these were not merely "spiritual" wives. Some of them bore children to Joe.:no:

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
Maybe they're not abusers, maybe they are victims that have been targeted by biased people.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." [/*]Ah yes - maybe the pregnant children are just a coincidence. Maybe a rate of teenage pregnancy 58 times higher than foster homes is just an "oops" little glitch. Maybe the records of marrying young girls to old men, of all the subsequent pregnancies are just a funny little joke they're playing on all of us. Maybe the missing 36 teenage boys are dressed as girls as one big game.


Facts are indeed where it's at here.

[KatyDid]

Bias is a two-way street.

Providing facts as they relate to the FLDS situation is what this forum is about.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Katydid, remarrying after the death of a spouse isn't polygamy. What Joe Smith & Brigham Young advocated was having multiple wives AT THE SAME TIME.

The documents of the LDS church STILL state that the only way a man can achieve godhood is by having multiple wives. It's the fundamentalists who are holding to the teachings of their founder.

Joe's first affair was with Fannie Alger, a pretty teenager who lived with Joseph and Emma. Emma was described as "furious" about it, and she drove the girl away.

His affair with Fannie occurred in 1837, around 4 years before his plural marriage revelation.

At least 9 of the "wives" of Joseph Smith were already married to other men, and these were not merely "spiritual" wives. Some of them bore children to Joe.:no: [/*]

Yep, that was my point. My grand fathers had several wives, just not at the same time. I was commenting about the theory posted of how polygamy got started, which was to take in the widows of those that died. My grandfathers wives died and they remarried after that fact, not during the time the wives lived. So, it isn't unusual to have more than one wife during that time. The unusual part was marrying them while the other wife is still living and in the household.

:)

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by snoodles


Maybe I should know this, but what is a glasslooker? [/*]

Glass lookers were not uncommon in New York farm country in the 1820's. They were shysters and con men who claimed that by looking into a piece of glass (or sometimes a special stone) they could see things others could not, including the locations of buried treasure. They would then charge poor farmers for this service to aid them in finding these great treasures supposedly buried beneath the ground. Of course none of these "treasures" were ever found.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/247268/joseph_smith_of_the_church_of_latterday.html

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by snoodles


Thank you! Kind of like a fortune teller with a crystal ball. [/*]

Yep. Smith's con was as a treasure hunter. There is more info at the link that is directly related to Joseph Smith and charges against him as a 'glass looker'. IMO, an interesting read.

[Details]

Some nice facts here - http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/polygamous.htm - it's incredible that Utah considers dumping a child on the side of the road a misdemeanor - and even with that little punishment, still doesn't prosecute! They make it easier for the dumped child to become emancipated - that's not what a child needs. They need a family.

I love the attorney general - he's not going to enforce the law because he doesn't want to go through all the work of all of the violations he knows about. Unbelievable.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Ah yes - maybe the pregnant children are just a coincidence. Maybe a rate of teenage pregnancy 58 times higher than foster homes is just an "oops" little glitch. Maybe the records of marrying young girls to old men, of all the subsequent pregnancies are just a funny little joke they're playing on all of us. Maybe the missing 36 teenage boys are dressed as girls as one big game.


Facts are indeed where it's at here. [/*]

Until it comes out in court, not a press conference, I can't be sure of the number of pregnant girls.
If accurate, there are still over 400 children that might not have been abused at all.


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Details
Some nice facts here - http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/polygamous.htm - it's incredible that Utah considers dumping a child on the side of the road a misdemeanor -

and even with that little punishment, still doesn't prosecute! They make it easier for the dumped child to become emancipated - that's not what a child needs. They need a family.

I love the attorney general - he's not going to enforce the law because he doesn't want to go through all the work of all of the violations he knows about. ....Unbelievable.... [/*]

Details, You're right as usual with the details...

Imo...the attorney general knows he's getting his paycheck from the taxpayers, whether he does anything or NOT......jmo

[not.another]

Originally posted by Details
Some nice facts here - http://www.childrenshealthcare.org/polygamous.htm - it's incredible that Utah considers dumping a child on the side of the road a misdemeanor - and even with that little punishment, still doesn't prosecute! They make it easier for the dumped child to become emancipated - that's not what a child needs. They need a family.

I love the attorney general - he's not going to enforce the law because he doesn't want to go through all the work of all of the violations he knows about. Unbelievable. [/*]

Well, from this article it sounds like someone should hunt the men down and start having them pay child support for all their children. Rather than the state paying for their upbringing. Does anyone see a solution to this? It should be a proven fact that these men have received all the welfare checks anyway, right?

[LLaFren]

Originally posted by Details
What alternate universe's post are you reading? She said they SHOULD be held accountable. Where in the world did you find the word "not"? [/*]

Thanks Details!

[evalles]

Originally posted by Texanne


I find your post cold hearted toward all the abused children. You seem to be saying.."OH well.., send all the ones who are not pregnant yet back so they can be raped by old men also." I am beginning to sense a desire from you to hijack the board to make it a rant against any and all foster care. I just cannot believe that your hidden agenda is to take up for this evil sect. Please tell me I am wrong. The fact is that more children than first suspected are now being reported as being pregnant or being mothers. They have sworn the volunteers at the local shelter to silence...but whispers of some of the volunteers being brought to tears is leaking out. They had no idea how bad it was, nor how mentally abused the children were. How about you give the childrens shelters a chance to protect these children and do the right thing before you continue your constant rant against foster care. Or, perhaps you can start another thread about foster care. This one is about the children of that hideous cult and what was done to them. [/*]

Put words in my mouth all you like.
I said I was waiting to hear what facts come out in court before I decide that the press report was accurate.
Please tell me what's wrong with that.
The girls that have been abused are away from the abusers, right ?
The kids that were abused are where they need to be, so while I feel bad that they suffered, they're being taken care of.
So that leaves the other 400+ children. The ones that have been abused, shouldn't be returned and they're away from their abusers.
That leaves the children who aren't abused and the parents who aren't abusers.
These are the kids that are waiting for resolution.

I don't understand why that upsets you so much.
Until I have all the facts, I cant bring myself to say that they should all be kept away from ther mothers and never given back.

Please explain to me how this could be perceived as hijacking the board ?

And you don't know me well enough to say that my hidden agenda is to take up for this evil sect.
When have I posted that I think FLDS is anything other than twisted ?
I just happen to believe, that like the other women that have escaped, there are some that want out, they just weren't brave enough.

And despite the nasty comments towards me from other members of this board, my opinions won't change unless the facts do.

[Details]

Lots of people change their opinion with facts - all reasonable people are open to changing their opinion as they learn new facts. We've seen it on this forum, we've seen it in any number of trials. Rational posters look at the facts, and when the facts contradict their biases, they rearrange their biases - they don't deny the facts.

Knowing and admitting your biases is only a small part of forming true opinions - recognizing when they are wrong, being willing to accept facts that contradict them is the rest.

From forums, from knowing lots of people - I just can't say that it's rare for people to change their opinions with facts - it isn't.

[evalles]

Originally posted by tirante


The sad part is that the facts do change; but you never do. [/*]

[Details]

Personal context, personal experience - these are all biased - these lead you to deciding that what feels good is right, that what fits your worldview and biases must be correct.

[evalles]

I was going to respond to tirante's post w/ a snide comment back but I'm not going to lower myself.
I'm still trying to figure out why I'm wrong because I won't say that every child was abused and that every parent was an abuser.

[Details]

A good story, fiction, is great. But it's not reality, it's not something to make a real decision that affects children's lives.

[Details]

To expand - a great work of fiction lets you see through another's eyes, empathize with a demon, understand how difficult and complex situations can be, etc. But empathizing with a demon - they're still a demon. Understanding how complex situations can be - a good thing - but there is still right and wrong. There is no truth higher than reality. Complex situations, sure, where it is not so simple to pick out the best option, times when the right option is the wrong option (Edith Keeler, anyone?) - but fiction enjoys finding the rare time when the opposite of the right thing becomes the right thing in a rare circumstance that does not reflect reality.

Fiction is fun and moves us, and manipulates emotions and circumstances and facts - but a great story does not overcome the facts and reality for me. At the end of the day, it's a manipulation - the writer sets the circumstances and personalities - wonderful fun, valuable lessons taught in stories - but not greater than the truth, facts, and reality.

[Rainkiss]

It's all well and good to say that the children who haven't been abused should be returned. That's a statement that some agree with, and some don't. It's also a moot point.

The parents of these children don't seem to be knocking down the doors asking for them back. Yes, there are a lot of pleas to return "the children." But not many women, and fewer men, coming forward to be DNA tested so that their children can be identified.

I expect the mothers aren't coming forward because they have children in custody old enough to prove that they were pregnant before the age of 16. And the men, because the mothers of their children were underage, AND because their children have been listed with welfare agencies as either "father unknown" or "father unwilling to pay support."

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
To expand - a great work of fiction lets you see through another's eyes, empathize with a demon, understand how difficult and complex situations can be, etc. But empathizing with a demon - they're still a demon. Understanding how complex situations can be - a good thing - but there is still right and wrong. There is no truth higher than reality. Complex situations, sure, where it is not so simple to pick out the best option, times when the right option is the wrong option (Edith Keeler, anyone?) - but fiction enjoys finding the rare time when the opposite of the right thing becomes the right thing in a rare circumstance that does not reflect reality.

Fiction is fun and moves us, and manipulates emotions and circumstances and facts - but a great story does not overcome the facts and reality for me. At the end of the day, it's a manipulation - the writer sets the circumstances and personalities - wonderful fun, valuable lessons taught in stories - but not greater than the truth, facts, and reality. [/*]

You remind me of OhioGal.
Reality is 400 children with their fates up in the air.

[cloe23]

Originally posted by evalles
I was going to respond to tirante's post w/ a snide comment back but I'm not going to lower myself.
I'm still trying to figure out why I'm wrong because I won't say that every child was abused and that every parent was an abuser. [/*]


Just curious evalles:confused:

If you lived in Texas and needed a place for your young boys and teenage girls to stay for a long period of time, per se.
Would you, if offered by the sect compound to provide your children with their care and love, peaceful environment.
would you drop them off, while you were in the need of a few months of child care assistance?

Just a scenario I was wondering if you would be willing to do?
Cloe:seeya:

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles
I was going to respond to tirante's post w/ a snide comment back but I'm not going to lower myself.
I'm still trying to figure out why I'm wrong because I won't say that every child was abused and that every parent was an abuser. [/*]

I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that anyone is saying that EVERY child was abused, and EVERY parent was an abuser.


However, CPS and LE determined that every child on that ranch who hadn't been abused was in danger of being abused in the foreseeable future, which is their yardstick for whether or not to remove children from their home. The young ladies were in danger of, once they reached puberty, being married off as underage "brides" to older men who likely already will have wives. The young men were in danger of being raised to perpetuate this custom, or of being kicked out of their homes once their use to the community came to an end and they became surplus men competing for brides.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Well said.

But ... you won't get a response to your response. 'Someone' is very conveniently refusing to address this crucial, central point - one that has been offered up time and time again, by many of us on this board.

I'm saving my keystrokes for more important things at this point ... [/*]

How's this ? I'll respond when I get off work.
My understanding was that for removal, the standard was imminent risk, if not, IMO it should be.
Absent imminent risk, an investigation can be conducted while leaving the family intact.

[evalles]

Originally posted by cloe23



Just curious evalles:confused:

If you lived in Texas and needed a place for your young boys and teenage girls to stay for a long period of time, per se.
Would you, if offered by the sect compound to provide your children with their care and love, peaceful environment.
would you drop them off, while you were in the need of a few months of child care assistance?

Just a scenario I was wondering if you would be willing to do?
Cloe:seeya: [/*]

I've stated over and over that I don't agree with their lifestyle and that the parties guilty of having sex w/ underage girls should be prosecuted.

[Details]

And the boys are victims too - victims of parents who raise them to become pedophiles. Grooming your child to become a victim or a criminal - both are abuse. Not to mention some of the latest information, not to mention the child labor, not to mention the children thrown away, and so on and so forth.

Not enough time to get all the proper links on the latest info, but I'm sure someone else will post it - broken bones and sexual abuse among the little boys - which would not be an FLDS first - they're paying for the sexual abuse of Jeff's own nephew.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
You remind me of OhioGal.
Reality is 400 children with their fates up in the air. [/*]I don't recall her.

Reality is 400 children whose fates are no longer hidden behind a cult's compound walls. Whose futures now have options other than being a victim or a victimizer.

[spageddy]

A little off the current topic- but I have a question about the name of this cult. Is the full name really "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"? If so, where does Jesus Christ fit into their beliefs? I don't believe I've seen picture of anyone but Warren Jeffs in any of the news shots of the compound.Maybe they dropped the Jesus from their name?

[wandering]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Yep, that was my point. My grand fathers had several wives, just not at the same time. I was commenting about the theory posted of how polygamy got started, which was to take in the widows of those that died. My grandfathers wives died and they remarried after that fact, not during the time the wives lived. So, it isn't unusual to have more than one wife during that time. The unusual part was marrying them while the other wife is still living and in the household.

:) [/*]this is the biography of Joseph Smith's wives. Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon religion.

He married 3 and 4 times a month, and other men's wives.
:read:


http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

[wandering]

Originally posted by evalles


How's this ? I'll respond when I get off work.
My understanding was that for removal, the standard was imminent risk, if not, IMO it should be.
Absent imminent risk, an investigation can be conducted while leaving the family intact. [/*]Many children, not of this case, have been returned to abusive homes, and are now dead.

I think the standard should be at the SLIGHTEST risk, they should be removed.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by wandering
this is the biography of Joseph Smith's wives. Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon religion.

He married 3 and 4 times a month, and other men's wives.
:read:


http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ [/*]

Thanks wandering :seeya:

Great find. Very interesting reading about each of the 'wives'. It's clear the tradition of abuse and marrying young girls started with the founder, Joseph Smith.

:no: shame on them all.

[Rainkiss]

CNN: Boys may have been abused, too. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/30/polygamist.abuse/index.html)

Apparently, the investigators have found, through interviews and through journals found on the raid, that underage boys may have been sexually abused, as well.

"The investigation is still in its early phases, but we have gathered additional information that is cause for concern," the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services said in a statement on its Web site.

The statement said the department is looking into the possibility that some of the young boys taken from the Yearning for Zion Ranch near Eldorado, Texas, had been sexually abused based on interviews with the children and journal entries found at the ranch.


You have really got to wonder what kind of moron it takes to actually WRITE DOWN that he'd been off sexually abusing a little boy that day.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by wandering
this is the biography of Joseph Smith's wives. Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon religion.

He married 3 and 4 times a month, and other men's wives.
:read:


http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ [/*]

The more I read these bios, the more disgusted I get :cuss:

This freak Joseph Smith commanded these young innocent girls to marry him telling them it was a command from God. A COMMAND FROM GOD!!! What would this glass looking shyster know about God. A two-bit con man is all he ever was. I doubt seriously God wished these girls and women the pain they suffered at Smith's egomaniacal rantings and commands.

The more I read, the sicker it makes me. barf

[wandering]

Originally posted by KatyDid


Thanks wandering :seeya:

Great find. Very interesting reading about each of the 'wives'. It's clear the tradition of abuse and marrying young girls started with the founder, Joseph Smith.

:no: shame on them all. [/*]Yes, it appears that whenever he got the "urge," he married another one.

Apparently he discarded them easily too, telling some that they should stay with their legal husbands, that the husbands were good men.

Here's another interesting link, telling how he used the "glass" to dictate the tenets of Mormonism, and debunking the claims of this "religion."

http://www.mrm.org/topics/reviews/joseph-smith-prophet-restoration.

[evalles]

Originally posted by essiemadge
posters, evalles is so ignorant of what is going on in texas that one of her former posts on this board called one woman the governor of austin. hmm, austin must be our new state??? or the poster does not know the name of the current states. she claims her daughter told lies to cps to get out of their house. if i lived with her, i think i would also tell lies. [/*]

She was mayor of Austin, I had a short break at work and actually posted from my palm which has very tiny buttons, I was also in a hurry, and under the influence of allergy meds.

I also don't claim to know alot about what's going on in Texas.
I post my thoughts and opinions. The posts that I usually don't respond to are the ones where I have learned something or where the poster is respectfully stating their opinion and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.

You sound more like a bully than someone trying to get their point across.
If you would lie for your own personal gain, how are you any different than the mother's that you accuse of the same ?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by jenny_92808


It makes me feel the same way!

I married a morman (the church this splinter group came from, in case some do not know) when I was very young and did not understand the religion (my family are Christians). Once I was married I was indocrinated by the bishop, church members and by my inlaws. My mother inlaw set down rules for me that my husband insisted I follow. The man is the master over the woman in morman religion. My MIL ruled that I may not be allowed to buy anything in a can (you must buy or grow food and can it yourself). I could not buy bread because I was required to bake it myself (I had to buy whole grain and grind it myself, etc.). Then, I was taken into the Bishops office one day with my (ex)husbands family and church members (like an intervention) and was told never to see my family again because they were of the devil (because they had a chance to convert to mormanism and did not).

You have probably guessed by now that I have some very strong opinions about this whole FLDS thing. :flamemad: [/*]

For you jenny :rose:

Thank you for sharing your experiences with us on the board.

[evalles]

Originally posted by wandering
Many children, not of this case, have been returned to abusive homes, and are now dead.

I think the standard should be at the SLIGHTEST risk, they should be removed. [/*]

I'm not disputing that fact. CPS was started out of grave necessity, there are children that are horribly maltreated.
If all the accusations are true, there are a lot of men facing criminal charges and the future risks would include criminal acts.

In the past, LE aided in C/AN investigations, but due to the huge increase in hotline calls, it's no longer possible.
I'd personally like to see LE do an investigation in addition to CPS in all cases where CPS thinks removal is warranted.

How do you define 'slightest risk'. The hard thing about child abuse investigations is the lack of clear guidelines.
IMO, since CPS consists of mere mortals, their biases are going to come into play.
This might not be the best example, but these allergy pills have left me in a fog.
Let's say, your sister, best friend, someone you know is a great mom, is unloading groceries and her six year old sees a friend across the street (a quiet street w/out a lot of traffic) and gets hit by a car. The car was going slow and it just knocks him over, he's conscious, but has a bump on the head from the fall and is crying hysterically. So is mom as soon as she stops screaming and assures herself he's alive. An ambulance takes him to the hospital and thank God he's ok, but the Dr., who's a mandatory reporter calls CPS. You're friend's not worried, she would die for her son and that should be obvious to all. Besides, her son was well-behaved and had been told repeatedly not to cross the street alone, this was a one time occurrence and she bet her son had learned an important lesson.
What happens if a human CPS worker had seen a child die after being hit by a car because of a parent's neglect?
What if she decides that your friend didn't supervise her child well that day, there's a risk she might not in the future and they need to take her child because next time he might get more than a bump on the head ?
You're friend and her child are in for months of court hearings, and psych evaluations and misery.
Also, since your friend feels they're making a huge mistake, she has doubts that they're going to put her child in a safe place because after all, if they can't see how much she loves her child and that the incident was nothing more than a tragic accident, how can she trust them to do what's right for her child.

What's the solution ? How do you prevent things like this from happening and still protect children ?
While leaving kids in abusive homes is unacceptable,
removing kids that aren't abused is horribly traumatic and IMO psychologically damaging to all involved.

[wandering]

Originally posted by evalles


I'm not disputing that fact. CPS was started out of grave necessity, there are children that are horribly maltreated.
If all the accusations are true, there are a lot of men facing criminal charges and the future risks would include criminal acts.

In the past, LE aided in C/AN investigations, but due to the huge increase in hotline calls, it's no longer possible.
I'd personally like to see LE do an investigation in addition to CPS in all cases where CPS thinks removal is warranted.

How do you define 'slightest risk'. The hard thing about child abuse investigations is the lack of clear guidelines.
IMO, since CPS consists of mere mortals, their biases are going to come into play.
This might not be the best example, but these allergy pills have left me in a fog.
Let's say, your sister, best friend, someone you know is a great mom, is unloading groceries and her six year old sees a friend across the street (a quiet street w/out a lot of traffic) and gets hit by a car. The car was going slow and it just knocks him over, he's conscious, but has a bump on the head from the fall and is crying hysterically. So is mom as soon as she stops screaming and assures herself he's alive. An ambulance takes him to the hospital and thank God he's ok, but the Dr., who's a mandatory reporter calls CPS. You're friend's not worried, she would die for her son and that should be obvious to all. Besides, her son was well-behaved and had been told repeatedly not to cross the street alone, this was a one time occurrence and she bet her son had learned an important lesson.
What happens if a human CPS worker had seen a child die after being hit by a car because of a parent's neglect?
What if she decides that your friend didn't supervise her child well that day, there's a risk she might not in the future and they need to take her child because next time he might get more than a bump on the head ?
You're friend and her child are in for months of court hearings, and psych evaluations and misery.
Also, since your friend feels they're making a huge mistake, she has doubts that they're going to put her child in a safe place because after all, if they can't see how much she loves her child and that the incident was nothing more than a tragic accident, how can she trust them to do what's right for her child.

What's the solution ? How do you prevent things like this from happening and still protect children ?
While leaving kids in abusive homes is unacceptable,
removing kids that aren't abused is horribly traumatic and IMO psychologically damaging to all involved. [/*]You are proposing a scenario that has no basis in reality. Most cases where CPS is involved have a prior history of complaints and neglect. I have never heard of a case such as you outline here.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm just not buying it, especially since case workers are over-loaded as it is, with real scenarios.

[walton]

Originally posted by evalles


She was mayor of Austin, I had a short break at work and actually posted from my palm which has very tiny buttons, I was also in a hurry, and under the influence of allergy meds.

I also don't claim to know alot about what's going on in Texas.
I post my thoughts and opinions. The posts that I usually don't respond to are the ones where I have learned something or where the poster is respectfully stating their opinion and I'm not sure if I agree or disagree.

You sound more like a bully than someone trying to get their point across.
If you would lie for your own personal gain, how are you any different than the mother's that you accuse of the same ? [/*]

:no: :no:

[evalles]

Originally posted by wandering
You are proposing a scenario that has no basis in reality. Most cases where CPS is involved have a prior history of complaints and neglect. I have never heard of a case such as you outline here.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'm just not buying it, especially since case workers are over-loaded as it is, with real scenarios. [/*]



I'm not being disrespectful, but how many cases have you seen ?

I'd like you to see some of the docs in my case. There are therapy referrals for my daughter that compare my home with her placement.
Ask's about parent's(me) previous history w/ CPS :none
For current placement(her aunt): Extensive history w/ CPS requiring services,and has a history of not supervising her own children well.
I'm not making this up.
Of course this is the reason my grounded teen wanted to live there.


There are a couple of cases that made a mojor impact on me, you might have seen them already, but here are the links.

Jim and Denise Wade -
http://www.electpd.org/wadetragedy.htm

and..
http://www.rd.com/stories/drama/parents-wrongly-accused-of-child-abuse/article31773-3.html

I bawled my eyes out after reading this.
The Judge on this cae was amazing.
Judge Richard D. Bennett read a statement into the record outlining the "living nightmare" the Velasquezes had endured. He encouraged Miguel to become a citizen. Then the judge said something rarely heard in a courtroom, "I apologize on behalf of the United States government," and he came down off the bench and shook their hands.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


The simple answer is that there is no perfect solution. As long as humans are involved, bad things will happen. It's a sad fact, but true. All we can do is the best we can do under a given set of circumstances. [/*]

Really sad.
The NyQuil is kickin in, so I can't think of anything else to say.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles


*snip for length*

What's the solution ? How do you prevent things like this from happening and still protect children ?
While leaving kids in abusive homes is unacceptable,
removing kids that aren't abused is horribly traumatic and IMO psychologically damaging to all involved. [/*]

There is no perfect solution when dealing with people. There are few "textbook" easy cases for CPS (in ANY state, I'm sure) where they can walk in the door, look around, and decide immediately what's going on. Parents lie, children lie, witnesses lie. Any of the three can be mistaken about a situation. Even CPS can be mistaken. A foster family that should NEVER be allowed to care for children can slip through the system. A lack of approved families with which to place children can lead to having children in group homes where older children can bully and abuse younger children.

I can certainly respect the fact that your bad experience with CPS leads you to want to have situations with CPS more closely monitored. It's important, for any child, but especially when there's a case of this size, that the public doesn't just trust that "CPS is involved, all is well."

However, I hope the few details that are still coming out about this case are doing something to reassure you that they had cause to remove all of the children. They need to investigate before they can go to the public and say, "Yes, we have reason to believe the boys have been abused and molested, as well as the girls." There's a lot we may never know, due to the laws that defend the privacy of the children, but what HAS been released is enough to convince me that they're on the right track.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by AnnieBean


The local police per Jessop were almost all FLDS members, she said calling the police about abuse or anything was pretty fruitless. I am reading her book now. I beleive most of it but she does vacillate between hating the arranged marriage to fighting w/ other wives to get her husband in her bed for sex. Now, its either one or the other, you can't have that both ways I don't imagine. Otherwise, good book. I am not done w/ it yet. [/*]

You're forgetting... Part of a woman's status in the community and the family is based on the number of children she has, which is a bit difficult to accomplish without your husband in your bed. And, without her husband's approval and permission, a woman doesn't get into heaven. And, let's face it, ladies... How many women do you know who have chucked their men out the door for whatever reason, may hate him, but if another woman is in the picture... ::shakes head::

Still trying to track down a copy, here, I may have to hit Amazon.

[Devotion]

Originally posted by tirante

That is interesting. There is a short bio on each of the women.

I didn't know Viagra was around in the 1830's-40's. [/*]

Viagra wasn't around in the 1800's, but sex addicts, pedofiles, abusers and the mentally ill were!

[Devotion]

Originally posted by KatyDid


The more I read these bios, the more disgusted I get :cuss:

This FREAK Joseph Smith commanded these young innocent girls to marry him telling them it was a command from God.
A COMMAND FROM GOD!!!

What would this "glass looking" shyster know about God?

A two-bit CON man is all he ever was.

I doubt seriously God wished these girls and women the pain they suffered at Smith's egomaniacal rantings and commands.

The more I read, the sicker it makes me. barf [/*]

Imo..A snake-oil salesman and more!

There's men in prison today that SAY they did what they did, because a voice from god, told them to do it.....of course some still claim to be god while doing their dirty, defiled deeds.....hopefully no one falls for that today......jmo

[Devotion]

Originally posted by AnnieBean

The local police per Jessop were almost all FLDS members, she said calling the police about abuse or anything was pretty fruitless.
I am reading her book now.

I believe most of it but she does vacillate between hating the arranged marriage to fighting w/ other wives to get her husband in her bed for sex.
Now, its either one or the other, you can't have that both ways I don't imagine.
Otherwise, good book. I am not done w/ it yet. [/*]

Could it be, a little sex once a month was all the pleasure she had living there?

Speaking of books,
I found the following quotes, about when Laurene visited her father in prison quite interesting.
QUOTE:
Laurene and 12 of her sisters reported they'd been molested, she says --
In 1983, her father, Jack Cooke, pleaded guilty to sexual assault and went to prison for five years.

"He took my virtue," she said. "And I think he should have got more than five years in prison for what he did."
Justifying His Abuse:
Quiñones spoke to Jack Cooke about his daughter's pain.
At the time, the 76-year-old had not seen his daughter for 22 years, but talked to Quiñones knowing she was in a nearby room, listening in.

He said at the time he didn't view his fondling of his (13) daughters as abuse.

It wasn't sexual, he said, claiming it was "on the same premise as our religion."

"I had the idea that I was the big boss," he said. "I believed those children were mine."

He compared his position to a farmer with his animals.

But he also said "every intimacy which I had with them, they understood perfectly that if I did anything they didn't like, to tell me and I would not do it."

Laurene denies this. She says he told his daughters they "weren't normal if we didn't like it.
And, that all men do that to their daughters."

Cooke continued: "I'd say it was consensual, whatever we were doing. I was not imposing on them."
When Laurene finally confronted Cooke, he greeted her by saying,

"Hello. I want to feast my eyes on you, beautiful lady."

She ignored his remark, and instead, asked him several questions she had carefully prepared for the moment. "Can you tell me in your own words what you did to me sexually?" she asked.

He replied, "You know that you're one of those few, that I don't remember hardly touching at all."

When she told him the explicit details, he responded, "I did?" But he didn't challenge her. "I won't call you a liar," he said.
end of quote......tell me this guy isn't sick!..moo

[Details]

You can hate a situation you are in, while still trying to make the best of it, do what you have to do - even if that's have sex or have a child because that'll make the abuse slightly lesser rather than greater.


If you are trapped in an arranged marriage you hate, there's no reason to deliberately make your situation more miserable by fighting the inevitable or allowing yourself to lose out on one of the few pleasures (having a child) available.

[walton]

Originally posted by AnnieBean


The local police per Jessop were almost all FLDS members, she said calling the police about abuse or anything was pretty fruitless. I am reading her book now. I beleive most of it but she does vacillate between hating the arranged marriage to fighting w/ other wives to get her husband in her bed for sex. Now, its either one or the other, you can't have that both ways I don't imagine. Otherwise, good book. I am not done w/ it yet. [/*]

Just recently they removed a few of these cops from duty. But there are still some on the force today.

Cops, Mayor, Judges, Lawyers and even Doctors. Where could these women go?

Who could they trust? LE let them down, their town let them down and the state has let them down.

:(

[Devotion]

Originally posted by AnnieBean
*]
I can't get this out of my mind, Carolyn Jessop describing the alpha wife in HER household,

Barbara, and how she doled out punishment to wives and kids alike....

babies were beaten by her until they turned BLUE and got quiet-
you know how infants do when they cry so hard they get all red and purple and then stop,
seem to catch their breath and then cry anew?

She beat babies!!
Babies!!! Shes let them catch their breath then beat them again, and again.

No, I do not want these men OR THESE WOMEN let go,
or allowed to continue to raise the kids they've got.

From reading the Canadian link upthread about a household in Bountiful,

Alpha wife is common in almost all households, and they are NOT NICE.
If Merrill Jessop is running the show at YFZ Ranch, his alpha wife Barbara is probably PHP in excitement,

she is promised by Jeffs to be a Goddess in heaven, along with Merrill..... :rolleyes:... Whatever...

(thier thirst for power goes beyond the grave...into eternity.)

eta: The truth will set free the women who are too scared to speak up and afraid they will go to HELL if they 'disobey' their priesthood whatever....

I hope once a few start to speak up, women like Barbara Jessop will be outed and punished. The beatings are witnessed by all the other kids, so getting wittnesses to collaborate is the key....imo.... [/*]

Imo...Child abuse of the worst-kind! People don't beat and treat their animals this badly.

What is all this abuse, no laughing or crying or playing or schooling, no one to turn to, making this child turn INTO as an adult?

These women and babies are living in HELL on earth, and scared they will get more of the SAME when they die!
How sad and helpless they must feel!

The babies are abused and beat from the time they are born with no one to love or protect them!
How SICK and MEAN!

I remember reading how the fathers beat the babies, and put their heads under a running faucet until they stopped crying and went limp from exhaustion...

Where is the Law?
This supposed to be AMERICA, Land of the FREE, it has to stop!......jmo

[Poochie Pie]

Originally posted by AnnieBean


I can't get this out of my mind, Carolyn Jessop describing the alpha wife in HER household, Barbara, and how she doled out punishment to wives and kids alike....babies were beaten by her until they turned blue and got quiet- you know how infants do when they cry so hard they get all red and purple and then stop, seem to catch their breath and then cry anew? She beat babies!!
Babies!!! Shes let them catch their breath then beat them again, and again. No, I do not want these men OR THESE WOMEN let go, or allowed to continue to raise the kids they've got. From reading the Canadian link upthread about a household in Bountiful, alpha wife is common in almost all households, and they are not nice.
If Merrill Jessop is running the show at YFZ Ranch, his alpha wife Barbara is probably PHP in excitement, she is promised by Jeffs to be a Goddess in heaven, along with Merrill. :rolleyes: Whatever...
(thier thirst for power goes beyond the grave...into eternity.)

eta: The truth will set free the women who are too scared to speak up and afraid they will go to hell if they 'disobey' their priesthood whatever....I hope once a few start to speak up, women like Barbara Jessop will be outed and punished. The beatings are witnessed by all the other kids, so getting wittnesses to collaborate is the key....imo.... [/*] I fear that we will learn a lot more than we want to before this whole thing is over, Annie.... I agree with every word of your post..!! IMO

Poochie

[Devotion]

Originally posted by Poochie Pie
I fear that we will learn a lot more than we want to before this whole thing is over,

Annie.... I agree with every word of your post..!! IMO

Poochie [/*]
Poochie, I agree....
From what I've read, this CULT is all about CONTROL, ABUSE, FEAR, money, sex and disfunction!

I see NO LOVE or happiness in this cult's actions or teachings!....jmo

[Vinnie]

I agree that Barbara Jessop needs to be prosecuted. She's an incredibly controlling and downright evil person. The way she treats the other wives and the children...if I could have reached through the pages of Escape and throttled her, I would have!

[Wolfmate]

Originally posted by John7878


Ok what I saw was the news report that kids were being "taken" from their homes and that the women "voluntarily" left.

Then I see a video of the women saying that they left to be with the children, not that they WANTED to leave their homes. When clearly the news was slanting the report to make it seem as though they were.

And they say the police LIED to them.

They say that there is NO abuse.

They say that the girl they are looking for doesn't even live there.

They say that their kids are being abused by the state officials by stripping them for examinations and that the kids are 'horrified'.

I see authorities coming out with conflicting reports. I see them in the news confirming that they still know nothing about the girl that called, the kids......do I need to go on.....

I have to ask myself just who is the brainwashed one here. [/*]

I don't know of any cult member who would admit they were abused or brainwashed. It is part of the conditioning. I am not saying that they were for sure, but it does sort of look that way to me. How many abused women deny the abuse? It happens daily. Why would the women actually admit to it? They wouldn't, because they don't believe they have been. I don't think we can just take their word for it. Think back to the Jim Jones cult and how many died and for nothing. I doubt many of them would admit to being brainwashed. They BELIEVE in what they are saying. That is part of being brainwashed.

As far as what someone said about this being like Waco. I disagree. These people are not stockpiling weapons. They aren't taught to kill govt employees to protect their way of life. I didn't see any pictures of 12 year old boys holding automatic weapons. This isn't the same thing by a long shot. There was no violence when the children were taken.

MOO

[lotty]

Originally posted by Wolfmate


I don't know of any cult member who would admit they were abused or brainwashed. It is part of the conditioning. I am not saying that they were for sure, but it does sort of look that way to me. How many abused women deny the abuse? It happens daily. Why would the women actually admit to it? They wouldn't, because they don't believe they have been. I don't think we can just take their word for it. Think back to the Jim Jones cult and how many died and for nothing. I doubt many of them would admit to being brainwashed. They BELIEVE in what they are saying. That is part of being brainwashed.

As far as what someone said about this being like Waco. I disagree. These people are not stockpiling weapons. They aren't taught to kill govt employees to protect their way of life. I didn't see any pictures of 12 year old boys holding automatic weapons. This isn't the same thing by a long shot. There was no violence when the children were taken.

MOO [/*]
:beer:
Which really shows when the boys in the FLDS were interacting with LE during the "raid" as evidenced by photos. It felt good to see boys do, what boys do. I'm sure LE heard plenty of "Can I look?" and "What is that?"
As always JMO/IMO

[Wolfmate]

Originally posted by John7878


No didn't see it.... got a link??




Yes, I knew there was more than one.




But then they have been there how long? Doing illegal stuff?
So they KNOW they are criminals, but these places have been here since the 1800's.




WOW from a wedding, to rape, to pregnant against her will.


And I do NOT "obviously feel the opposite".

As I posted before my wife of 38 years was 17 when we were married, a friends wife was BARELY 16 when they got married and they have celebrated their 40th anniversary.
When I graduated 2 of the kids had THEIR kids there!
And I talked to my nephew today and he was talking about child care services at the local high school! So I'm guessing its gotten worse since I left.

Sex & marriage at a young age are NOT a new problem....by a long shot.

So girls in Texas don't get pregnant any younger than 17?!?!?!?
If a 16 yr old girl is pregnant, the father is not allowed to marry her and is instead thrown in jail??

I think the odds are there probably is at least one case of abuse in this mess.
I just happen to think that is probably a lot less prevalent in their society than in our own.

Am I wrong.....heck I could be....lets wait and see....




Yet people claim THEY are victims of this as much as the kids.
Weird.



THIS is where we REALLY disagree. I've seen government in action, and its never pretty. [/*]

Congrats to you and your wife for your long marriage. That is a rarity these days. I would like to interject one point though. You married your wife because you wished to, you fell in love, nobody forced you to marry her and I am guessing you are similiar in age.

Nobody is saying that all marriages under 17 are horrible. I would say most are ill advised, but still it happens. How many women are forced to marry a man decades her senior and who already has other wives and many children? Not many I would guess, outside of this religion. I am assuming that your wife married you voluntarily instead of being told that she had to right?

You are comparing apples to giraffes here.

MOO

[juliekan]

The girl that recently gave birth in San Marcos, was her name Sarah? I thought it was reported that she was 16-17 and had a child already. Not saying that Rozita Swinton wasn't perhaps behind the phone call made...but wouldn't that be interesting if the girl was named Sarah?

[xray ra]

Originally posted by juliekan
The girl that recently gave birth in San Marcos, was her name Sarah? I thought it was reported that she was 16-17 and had a child already. Not saying that Rozita Swinton wasn't perhaps behind the phone call made...but wouldn't that be interesting if the girl was named Sarah? [/*]

If IRCC the caller "Sarah" reported that she was only 2 or 3 month pregnant at the time. Which would make her about 4 months pregnant now. She would be able to conceal that she was barely pregnant to CPS.

The link is way back at the beginning.:shrug:

[juliekan]

thanks xray, could not remember the facts. :)

[Vinnie]

The LDS must hate it when the FLDS are in the news (like now). It brings out unsavory facts about Joseph Smith & Brigham Young that the authorities would rather you - and the rank & file LDS - not know.

The "keep sweet" concept isn't foreign to the LDS, either. In LDS households, the husband/father is the "priesthood holder" and is the one to take his wife to "celestial" heaven. So IN ESSENCE, the husband is the wife's personal god. HE is her "savior" who will call her forth from the grave.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Vinnie
The LDS must hate it when the FLDS are in the news (like now). It brings out unsavory facts about Joseph Smith & Brigham Young that the authorities would rather you - and the rank & file LDS - not know.

The "keep sweet" concept isn't foreign to the LDS, either. In LDS households, the husband/father is the "priesthood holder" and is the one to take his wife to "celestial" heaven. So IN ESSENCE, the husband is the wife's personal god. HE is her "savior" who will call her forth from the grave. [/*]

The stories I am reading about JS & BY are appalling. I can't believe they EVER were called religious leaders.

I am glad to know their secrets are making them a little uncomfortable now.

JMO, of course.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by KatyDid


The stories I am reading about JS & BY are appalling. I can't believe they EVER were called religious leaders.

I am glad to know their secrets are making them a little uncomfortable now.

JMO, of course. [/*]

I too am so very glad that the world is finally looking and seeing what they really are.

There were many mormon discussions on the religion board before this made the news. It was surprising to see how many mormons did not have a clue to what the real truth was to their own religion even with so much truth out there to be found if they had only chose to look.

I could NEVER give/commit myself to anything especially a religion not even knowing the FACTS. Maybe it's just me but I'd throughly RESEARCH.

Makes me ponder on how much some truly hold religions sacred when they care not to even know it.

Sly

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by FoxySly


I too am so very glad that the world is finally looking and seeing what they really are.

There were many mormon discussions on the religion board before this made the news. It was surprising to see how many mormons did not have a clue to what the real truth was to their own religion even with so much truth out there to be found if they had only chose to look.

I could NEVER give/commit myself to anything especially a religion not even knowing the FACTS. Maybe it's just me but I'd throughly RESEARCH.

Makes me ponder on how much some truly hold religions sacred when they care not to even know it.

Sly [/*]

Huh :confused: they don't know these horrid truths about the founders of their religion? WOW~this is one religion that is ALL over the Internet. Doesn't take much to find the history, and it is almost impossible to deny the facts.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by tirante
I find it interesting that a lot of folks who staunchly stated that the LDS and the FLDS have absolutely nothing in common, have become silent. Perhaps they never knew the facts about Horny Joe Smith and Viagra Brigham? [/*]

:D

Reading about Smith and Young, they sound more like FLDS than LDS. Maybe LDS is in the closet with it.

[FoxySly]

Originally posted by KatyDid
Huh :confused: they don't know these horrid truths about the founders of their religion? WOW~this is one religion that is ALL over the Internet. Doesn't take much to find the history, and it is almost impossible to deny the facts. [/*]

Yup, it's all over the internet, even in their own books but they have excuses or deny or just don't truly care.

I mentioned "No Man Knows My History' by Brodie many, many times.
The church was very upset about this book (lol I'm sure still is). But the more they tried to prove her a liar the more they proved her most correct and that they were/are the liars and deceivers. This was long before the internet.

But Brodie's book has stood the test of time and truth. Still, they turn their heads and hearts away from the truth. Maybe because their truth is so very, very ugly that they haven't the courage to face it, to say dang it! I'm not so stupid to keep following what are proved lies and deceits.

The flds and rlds among others are indeed the true mormons following their seer joseph smith who said that his 'Book of Mormon' was the most correct book on Earth.

Which in it's self is strange since it has gone through over 400 changes but they will say "oh those were just spelling and grammar errors".
With that answer I always know they didn't care enough to SEE/RESEARCH for them selves. That is the standard answer they are told to recite or has been recited to them. Baah, baah little sheep.

Sly

[KatyDid]

Baah baah little sheep, indeed!!!

Wolves in sheep's clothing, IMO.

[Rainkiss]

Gentle reminder, folks...

We have at least one poster here who is a Mormon, and who has been quite reasonable and thoughtful about the whole situation.

Regardless of your belief or lack thereof in their faith, a little respect is in order.

I could get into the number of editions of the Bible that exist, and the fact that several chapters seem to have gone wandering over the centuries, but I won't. :)

[KatyDid]

I agree about the Bible and how it was edited to better serve a Patriarchal society. There are plenty of Internet sites about that too.

[Vinnie]

Why bring up Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? For a number of reasons:

1) JS was the guy who introduced plural marriage.

2) BY furthered it - big time.

3) By understanding their roots, you'll better understand the FLDS.

4) By understanding their roots, you'll better understand why there has been leniency toward the polygamists in Utah.

5) Knowing the link between the LDS and the FLDS will help people understand why it would be incredibly tragic to decriminalize polygamy (because MANY LDS - and perhaps their authorities themselves - would revert to preaching plural marriage).

6) Understanding the history of the LDS promotes understanding of the FLDS. The tendency to isolate in order to practice illegal activities and to control followers began with Brigham Young leading the Mormons to then isolated Utah. The LDS believe this migration occurred because of "persecution" - which is exactly what the FLDS are claiming now.

I don't mean to offend, but the truth can set us free! :patriot:

[lotty]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Nor do I mean to offend, and I hope my posts on this subject have been at the very least respectful of any members of the church who read/post here.

I am just more curious than anything else, and have been since I was introduced to the Mormon faith via the Osmond family, LOL!

What I'd really like to know, if anyone can point me to a link or even explain it firsthand, is how the LDS has worked through the necessity of plural marriage as prescribed (proscribed?) by Smith/Young. According to the founders of the church, there's no other way into heaven ... right?

So what's the workaround (for lack of a better term) for modern day LDS'ers?

:confused: [/*]

IIRC it has been suspended for the time being. Somebody help me out here. A revelation to suspend polygamy until...I guess another revelation says it ok (I'm not LDS and not good at explaining.):punch:

[juliekan]

4th Annual Summit on Polygamy
AG Shurtleff, LE, and Social Workers meet

Fox News, ED Hill interviewing AG Shurtleff:
"Polygamy is illegal, is it not?"
AG "We have 10,000 kids...we can't have a fiasco like in Texas" (by atttempting to prosecute bigamy)
ED "I have never heard (an official) say that a crime is so widespread you can't shut it down."
AG then states they would also have to go after adulterers since that is against the law. That the summit is to offer help to women and children in abusive polygamous families.
ED states that's like not shutting down a sweat shop manned by illegal immigrants because you want to just help workers that are already illegal?
ED/AG :flamemad: exchange
ED ends with "If you shut down polygamist communities, you shut down the abuses to the children and women."

Sorry couldn't write fast enough to get it all. ED was all over him, and he got angry...:biggrin:

[Vinnie]

The LDS never abandoned plural marriage - only the current practice of it.

In 1890, the LDS president (Woodruff) issued a manifesto that ended the "official" practice of polygamy. However, it was many years before even the higher authorities of the LDS church stopped having plural wives and stopped performing plural marriages.

For a discussion of this history, see:

http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm

[lotty]

Originally posted by Vinnie
The LDS never abandoned plural marriage - only the current practice of it.

In 1890, the LDS president (Woodruff) issued a manifesto that ended the "official" practice of polygamy. However, it was many years before even the higher authorities of the LDS church stopped having plural wives and stopped performing plural marriages.

For a discussion of this history, see:

http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm [/*]
TY! I knew someone would do a better job!

[lotty]

Originally posted by juliekan
4th Annual Summit on Polygamy
AG Shurtleff, LE, and Social Workers meet

Fox News, ED Hill interviewing AG Shurtleff:
"Polygamy is illegal, is it not?"
AG "We have 10,000 kids...we can't have a fiasco like in Texas" (by atttempting to prosecute bigamy)
ED "I have never heard (an official) say that a crime is so widespread you can't shut it down."
AG then states they would also have to go after adulterers since that is against the law. That the summit is to offer help to women and children in abusive polygamous families.
ED states that's like not shutting down a sweat shop manned by illegal immigrants because you want to just help workers that are already illegal?
ED/AG :flamemad: exchange
ED ends with "If you shut down polygamist communities, you shut down the abuses to the children and women."

Sorry couldn't write fast enough to get it all. ED was all over him, and he got angry...:biggrin: [/*]

I can't believe I missed it! hammer TY Julie for the info...sounds like someone is starting to ask the obvious questions.

[walton]

Originally posted by juliekan
4th Annual Summit on Polygamy
AG Shurtleff, LE, and Social Workers meet

Fox News, ED Hill interviewing AG Shurtleff:
"Polygamy is illegal, is it not?"
AG "We have 10,000 kids...we can't have a fiasco like in Texas" (by atttempting to prosecute bigamy)
ED "I have never heard (an official) say that a crime is so widespread you can't shut it down."
AG then states they would also have to go after adulterers since that is against the law. That the summit is to offer help to women and children in abusive polygamous families.
ED states that's like not shutting down a sweat shop manned by illegal immigrants because you want to just help workers that are already illegal?
ED/AG :flamemad: exchange
ED ends with "If you shut down polygamist communities, you shut down the abuses to the children and women."

Sorry couldn't write fast enough to get it all. ED was all over him, and he got angry...:biggrin: [/*]

:) Please tell me that this will air again?

[juliekan]

Originally posted by walton


:) Please tell me that this will air again? [/*]

I know that they have video clips of some interviews they did yesterday, hopefully by tomorrow FOX news (America's Pulse with ED Hill) will have a clip :)

[walton]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Why bring up Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? For a number of reasons:

1) JS was the guy who introduced plural marriage.

2) BY furthered it - big time.

3) By understanding their roots, you'll better understand the FLDS.

4) By understanding their roots, you'll better understand why there has been leniency toward the polygamists in Utah.

5) Knowing the link between the LDS and the FLDS will help people understand why it would be incredibly tragic to decriminalize polygamy (because MANY LDS - and perhaps their authorities themselves - would revert to preaching plural marriage).

6) Understanding the history of the LDS promotes understanding of the FLDS. The tendency to isolate in order to practice illegal activities and to control followers began with Brigham Young leading the Mormons to then isolated Utah. The LDS believe this migration occurred because of "persecution" - which is exactly what the FLDS are claiming now.

I don't mean to offend, but the truth can set us free! :patriot: [/*]

Good post Vinnie!!

Vinnie is right folks. History makes us who we are today.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by lotty


I can't believe I missed it! hammer TY Julie for the info...sounds like someone is starting to ask the obvious questions. [/*]

I missed it too. :(

How many of us on this board are asking these questions, but the media isn't willing to stick their toe in the water?

Bravo to ED Hill!!

[walton]

Originally posted by juliekan


I know that they have video clips of some interviews they did yesterday, hopefully by tomorrow FOX news (America's Pulse with ED Hill) will have a clip :) [/*]

Thank you. I will look for it.

I've been watching/reading all this for so long it would be cool if people start asking the gut questions and toss the nicey nicey out the door so to speak.

They are so use to people just taking what they have to say as the final answer. So use to manipulating the General Public that they are not use to someone making them accountable for their answers.



oh this is such a good thing.

:)

[juliekan]

Originally posted by KatyDid


I missed it too. :(

How many of us on this board are asking these questions, but the media isn't willing to stick their toe in the water?

Bravo to ED Hill!! [/*]

I e-mailed ED afterward to give her a rapturous review.:beer:

[walton]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1237,00.html

ED Hill is a girl. :eek:


Prior to WABC-TV, Hill was WHDH-TV's (NBC-Boston, MA) midday news anchor, where she won a local EMMY Award for Outstanding News Special. Earlier in her career, Hill served as a business anchor for CBS Morning News and CBS Radio Network and was the anchor for WPXI-TV's (NBC-Pittsburgh, PA) evening newscasts.

A graduate of University of Texas and mother of eight children, Hill is also the recipient of a Golden Quill Award for live spot news reporting.





She graduated from Texas. She has 8 kids. She didn't backdown.


Walton is doing the happy dance. :D

[juliekan]

Hook 'em Horns :patriot:

sorry I'm a U of Texas alum

[walton]

Originally posted by juliekan


I e-mailed ED afterward to give her a rapturous review.:beer: [/*]

Here is the email addy: mailto:americaspulse@foxnews.com

Can't see anything where they might have a clip on line but I will keep looking.

I am going to send off a note.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by walton


Here is the email addy: mailto:americaspulse@foxnews.com

Can't see anything where they might have a clip on line but I will keep looking.

I am going to send off a note. [/*]

Good. I just e-mailed them that a lot of people will be looking for it.

[xray ra]

Hey cyper friends:seeya:

I have been catching up on the last 24 hours of posts on DH's computer. Mine went POOF!!!!!!!

So many great links, and great info.
(I even wrote a naughty little note on the poly petition site!)
I know :punch:

I will try to keep up but, Best Buy says I might not have computer back for at least 2 weeks, Aaaarrrgggg!!!!

BTW, Walton, just wondering why you think that Warren Jeffs might not be among the living any longer. It seems that some of your posts have eluded to the idea, that LE wants us to think he is alive but might not be. Huh????

Also, as far as knowing the history of my religion's founder, ...As a methodist, all I know is that the guys name is Martin Luther.
I know the catholic church gave him a hard time.
I don't think that if I found out he had a few crimes in his lifetime, that would change my belief in my religion or my God and His Son!!
I guess what I'm saying is that some Mormon's have probably not given their beliefs anymore scrutiny than I gave mine.

:)

[Debb]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz
Nor do I mean to offend, and I hope my posts on this subject have been at the very least respectful of any members of the church who read/post here.

I am just more curious than anything else, and have been since I was introduced to the Mormon faith via the Osmond family, LOL!

What I'd really like to know, if anyone can point me to a link or even explain it firsthand, is how the LDS has worked through the necessity of plural marriage as prescribed (proscribed?) by Smith/Young. According to the founders of the church, there's no other way into heaven ... right?

So what's the workaround (for lack of a better term) for modern day LDS'ers?

:confused: [/*]

I saw your post and it took me back to my childhood. I too became interested in the LDS Church as a huge Osmond fan. I went to some meetings and did quite a bit of research when I was a teen. My parents would not allow me to join and I never did.

I am no expert on the subject, however, my understanding of how LDS members get around, the plural wives, thing is that they have as many children as possible with their one wife, which provides them with a huge family in the hereafter. They also have baptism for dead ancestors. They do geneology checks and locate dead family members from long ago and then hold baptism by proxy for those people so they can share in heaven. At least that is my understanding. I'm sure there are actual LDS members who can expound on the matter.

[Vinnie]

xray ra sez: "Also, as far as knowing the history of my religion's founder, ...As a methodist, all I know is that the guys name is Martin Luther.
I know the catholic church gave him a hard time.
I don't think that if I found out he had a few crimes in his lifetime, that would change my belief in my religion or my God and His Son!!"

Well, um, if you're a Methodist, your religion's founder is Jesus Christ, and your denomination's founder is John Wesley. But it's typical that Methodists don't pay that much attention to John Wesley, Presbyterians don't pay much attention to John Knox, and Baptists don't know much about the anabaptists. What they DO pay attention to is the Bible.

You could find out that old John Wesley was a creep (he wasn't), and it wouldn't really change your faith at all because he isn't foundational to it. But it is quite different with Mormons in relation to J.S. If J.S. wasn't a prophet, the whole structure of the LDS church crumbles. Also, the history of J.S. is absolutely foundational to the regular teaching in the Mormon congregations. They hear about him all the time. Of course they hear a sanitized version of his life.

[walton]

Originally posted by xray ra
Hey cyper friends:seeya:


BTW, Walton, just wondering why you think that Warren Jeffs might not be among the living any longer. It seems that some of your posts have eluded to the idea, that LE wants us to think he is alive but might not be. Huh????


:) [/*]

Ya made me lose my spit.

I do not like Warren Jeffs. I do believe that I have posted with Warrens sister on another board. I never ever would want to hurt her feelings by saying it out loud. I respect the woman for all that she has been thru and for all that she has done to help the kids.

Elaine if your reading I am sorry.

But I sure hope that I am wrong in my thinking but that is exactly what I have been thinking since the day of his sentencing.

so I don't get into trouble.... all this is just my opinon.

[xray ra]

Originally posted by Vinnie
xray ra sez: "Also, as far as knowing the history of my religion's founder, ...As a methodist, all I know is that the guys name is Martin Luther.
I know the catholic church gave him a hard time.
I don't think that if I found out he had a few crimes in his lifetime, that would change my belief in my religion or my God and His Son!!"

Well, um, if you're a Methodist, your religion's founder is Jesus Christ, and your denomination's founder is John Wesley. But it's typical that Methodists don't pay that much attention to John Wesley, Presbyterians don't pay much attention to John Knox, and Baptists don't know much about the anabaptists. What they DO pay attention to is the Bible.

You could find out that old John Wesley was a creep (he wasn't), and it wouldn't really change your faith at all because he isn't foundational to it. But it is quite different with Mormons in relation to J.S. If J.S. wasn't a prophet, the whole structure of the LDS church crumbles. Also, the history of J.S. is absolutely foundational to the regular teaching in the Mormon congregations. They hear about him all the time. Of course they hear a sanitized version of his life. [/*]

See Vinnie , that's what I mean, John Wesley, Martin Luther, what do I know. I guess I should have paid more attention is Sunday School. But they were busy trying to teach us "THE GOLDEN RULE". I still use it to this day, each and every day.

So does the Mormon religion believe that Jesus Christ is not our Savior? Why do people need prophets?
Pastors and Ministers are all I need to help me understand the teachings of Jesus and the message of God. Never, in my 55 years have any of my preachers said they were better than any other members of our congregations.
Sorry to be O/T.

I hope that Texas continues to work to keep those children safe

:)

[Vinnie]

"So does the Mormon religion believe that Jesus Christ is not our Savior?"

That's a good question, and the answer is "Sort of". Their view of the salvation provided by Jesus is that, everybody (except the very, very worst of mankind), gets to go to one of the three degrees of heaven. These degrees of heaven are terrestrial, telestial (a term JS made up), and celestial. Mormons use the term salvation interchangeably with the term exaltation, which refers to getting to celestial heaven and becoming a god (or a god's wife).

So while Jesus is referred to as the Savior in Mormon-speak, He's a little bit passe. You're on your own to work your way to godhood.

By the way, the Jesus of Mormonism was married and a polygamist.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Vinnie
"So does the Mormon religion believe that Jesus Christ is not our Savior?"

That's a good question, and the answer is "Sort of". Their view of the salvation provided by Jesus is that, everybody (except the very, very worst of mankind), gets to go to one of the three degrees of heaven. These degrees of heaven are terrestrial, telestial (a term JS made up), and celestial. Mormons use the term salvation interchangeably with the term exaltation, which refers to getting to celestial heaven and becoming a god (or a god's wife).

So while Jesus is referred to as the Savior in Mormon-speak, He's a little bit passe. You're on your own to work your way to godhood.

By the way, the Jesus of Mormonism was married and a polygamist. [/*]

:eek: they have a different Jesus too?

they get to work their way up to god status?

[FoxySly]

A few years ago Tracian had a religious board going.
There is a vast amount of mormon research there though the board is no longer active.
I emailed Coldwater asking if I could link it just for reference to help answer the many questions here.

Sly

[Vinnie]

hey have a different Jesus too?

they get to work their way up to god status?

_______________________________

Yes to both. They are not only POLYgamists (if not in this life, then at least in the life to come), they are also POLYtheists (they believe multitudes of gods exist and rule various planets, universes, etc.). Males can, if they are sufficiently obedient to "gospel" (Mormon) principles, evolve to godhood. Females cannot.

Almost every term (such as Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Israel, Zion, salvation, eternal life, gospel) used in Christianity is redefined in Mormonism.

:read:

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by Vinnie
hey have a different Jesus too?

they get to work their way up to god status?

_______________________________

Yes to both. They are not only POLYgamists (if not in this life, then at least in the life to come), they are also POLYtheists (they believe multitudes of gods exist and rule various planets, universes, etc.). Males can, if they are sufficiently obedient to "gospel" (Mormon) principles, evolve to godhood. Females cannot.

Almost every term (such as Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Israel, Zion, salvation, eternal life, gospel) used in Christianity is redefined in Mormonism.

:read: [/*]

It sounds like the Bible is a supplement to book of mormon.

[Vinnie]

This thread really is about the FLDS, but because the FLDS sprang from the LDS, and ultimately from Joseph Smith, questions do arise about how the FLDS became what they are today.

The problem with the FLDS isn't just polygamy. It's also the level of control the men exert over the women and children. They are all-powerful because they may ultimately become gods, and because they are "priesthood holders", which gives enormous power in the Mormon faith.

In the Bible, the apostle Paul wrote that "in Christ there is no male or female", but that is not so in the FLDS.

I have a couple of points along that line, and they pertain to all branches of Mormonism

1) My understanding is that in the Mormon faith, at the resurrection, God will call forth the priesthood holders (men only), and the husband will, if he so chooses, call forth his wife. He knows her temple name, but she will never, under any circumstances, know his name.

2) Even though Mormons have only one father in heaven and one savior, mortal men can, if they follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon faith, become gods one day. Mormon apostle Dallin Oakes was interviewed on July 20, 2007, for the PBS special "The Mormons". In this interview, he stated: "He [Joseph Smith] preached a great sermon not long before he was murdered that God was a glorified Man, glorified beyond our comprehension, (still incomprehensible in many ways), but a glorified, resurrected, physical Being, and it is the destiny of His children upon this earth, upon the conditions He has proscribed, to grow into that status themselves."

What Dallin Oakes does not say here, but what the Mormon authorities have always taught, is that godhood is for males, not females.

Here's an official LDS link to the partial transcript of the interview:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

[John7878]

Originally posted by grammybear


I am praying for these children and that the state will put these children first.
All I have read about the adults tells me they have no regard for these children and they are expendable.
jmoo [/*]

I don't know, I still can't shake the feeling that the state didn't do all they could have to put the kids first.

I feel like they 'arrested' all the victims and let all the perpetrators go.

Maybe I'm just wanting to spare the kids as much as possible and it wouldn't be practical to do it that way, but still seems wrong somehow.

:shrug:

[Vinnie]

Look at it this way, John, these kids are growing up in a concentration camp. The first thing you do when you are liberating a concentration camp is get the victims out. The prosecution of the guards & camp commanders comes later. And it will come.

:patriot:

[evalles]

Originally posted by John7878


I don't know, I still can't shake the feeling that the state didn't do all they could have to put the kids first.

I feel like they 'arrested' all the victims and let all the perpetrators go.

Maybe I'm just wanting to spare the kids as much as possible and it wouldn't be practical to do it that way, but still seems wrong somehow.

:shrug: [/*]

Do you think there was an immediate risk of serious physical harm to each child ?
Did you see any reasonable efforts taken to prevent the removal ?

I don't, I think Texas violated their own statutes.

[Details]

Everything so far has said that all of the adults are likely to have been complicit or abusers themselves. There was no way to leave the kids there. The men were the prospective husbands, but the women showed that they too endorse and support the abuse.

And with rule of law, we cannot take away the property from it's owners to give it to the kids, we cannot instantly put people in jail without a trial - but we can rescue the kids. They've got an ideal situation now - together with their friends and siblings, in a non-abusive home where they can start to learn what childhood is really about - it's not about working to pay your prophet, it's not about being made ready to be handed to some man for sex, it's not about worrying if you set one foot wrong your parents will throw you away because they've got too many men anyway.


They went above and beyond to help the kids - not only in doing what Utah and Arizona have failed to do for decades, and rescuing them, but in doing everything possible to make them comfortable, to minimize the disruption in their lives. I can understand wishing it was different - but the only possible difference I can see that would work would be for their parents not to be abusive.

[John7878]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Look at it this way, John, these kids are growing up in a concentration camp. The first thing you do when you are liberating a concentration camp is get the victims out. The prosecution of the guards & camp commanders comes later. And it will come.

:patriot: [/*]

If your going to 'liberate' concentration camp victims, why would you take only the young ones? The wives were victims of the males too.

They separate the kids from the women, so they will 'cooperate'.

But they fail to separate the women from the men, to do the same.

Just seems strange to me.



:confused:

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
If your going to 'liberate' concentration camp victims, why would you take only the young ones? The wives were victims of the males too.

They separate the kids from the women, so they will 'cooperate'.

But they fail to separate the women from the men, to do the same.

Just seems strange to me.



:confused: [/*]:confused:


You were here for this - right?

They took the young ones, they gave the women a choice, and a huge number did come along. And found that while the women no doubt are victims - they're also abusers - they did all they could to impede the investigation - telling children not to tell the truth, switching armbands and children around to try to prevent identification, etc. The women were victims - they're now abusers too. They support the abuse.

When this became obvious, the women were given a choice - they could go back to the men, back to the compound - or the state could take them to a new safe facility. Most chose the compound, chose the men.


I know you were around this case from the start - I thought... you remember this, right?


They rescued everyone. Some chose to go back to captivity - they're adults, and we cannot stop them.

[Details]

Someone posted the Texas statutes awhile ago. It was interesting - almost an exact description of the FLDS parents, and the situation at the FLDS compound.

[John7878]

Originally posted by Details
:confused:

They took the young ones, they gave the women a choice, and a huge number did come along.

They rescued everyone. Some chose to go back to captivity - they're adults, and we cannot stop them. [/*]

Yes the women came along, to be with their children. What Mother wouldn't?

Once the children were taken away from them, they then decided to go back home.

But your statement that they couldn't stop them from going back...is that true?

If you are a witness to a crime, can't you be held for a certain amount of time?

These women weren't separated from the men to get them to 'cooperate', as were the kids.
And they weren't separated from each other or held and questioned about any crimes as they could/should have been.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Someone posted the Texas statutes awhile ago. It was interesting - almost an exact description of the FLDS parents, and the situation at the FLDS compound. [/*]

They posted CPS's definitions taken from their child welfare manual not Texas statutes. I posted the statutes. The law states that there has to be an immediate risk of serious physical harm and they have to exercise reasonable efforts to prevent the child from being removed.
They made no efforts, unless you count the armed tanks.

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
Yes the women came along, to be with their children. What Mother wouldn't?

Once the children were taken away from them, they then decided to go back home.

But your statement that they couldn't stop them from going back...is that true?

If you are a witness to a crime, can't you be held for a certain amount of time?

These women weren't separated from the men to get them to 'cooperate', as were the kids.
And they weren't separated from each other or held and questioned about any crimes as they could/should have been. [/*]They had the choice right then - to go back to the men, or stay free. They chose to go back home. No, you cannot hold someone involuntarily unless you've got very, very, very compelling circumstances - and as a witness - I don't think they've got any right. Interrogation as a suspect - there's a fairly small number of hours you can do that - and you need some reason to have them as a suspect.

What country do you think this is? Soviet Russia? You can be questioned, for a set length of time - 12 hours, maybe even up to 72 hours. Beyond that, they need evidence to arrest you. If you are a witness, AND they know what to - maybe they can compell you to give a statement. That's pretty well the limit.

It's not uncommon here either - the police talk to the bruised and beaten wife, and she insists she fell down the stairs, and her daughter did too - they cannot hold the mother - all they can do is remove the child to protect her. If the mother is fool enough to go back to the father - nothing we can do about it - except prosecute him for domestic violence (one reason the laws changed so that we don't any longer need the abused party's consent to prosecute). But she can, and all too often does, come with him to court, beg the judge to let him off.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles


They posted CPS's definitions taken from their child welfare manual not Texas statutes. I posted the statutes. The law states that there has to be an immediate risk of serious physical harm and they have to exercise reasonable efforts to prevent the child from being removed.
They made no efforts, unless you count the armed tanks. [/*]

I'll link:

Texas Statutes:Family Code Ch 261 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm)

and

Family Code Ch 262 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000262.00.htm)

These are in legal-speak, the CPS guidelines are more reader-friendly.

I found of interest:

§ 262.008. ABANDONED CHILDREN. (a) An authorized
representative of the Department of Protective and Regulatory
Services may assume the care, control, and custody of a child:
(1) who is abandoned without identification or a means
for identifying the child; and
(2) whose identity cannot be ascertained by the
exercise of reasonable diligence.

I haven't heard this one stated, but, it appears that under Texas law, if they have no means of identifying those children, they were perfectly within the law to remove them. I don't know when they started the name games, but if they started during the investigation before the children were removed...

[Details]

There was one armored vehicle, present to be used to evacuate someone whose life might be in danger. There were SWAT or similar standing by just in case. A reasonable precaution, even if not needed this time, given the history of cults and violence. Neither were needed, nor used. The media had a great time with photographs of them - standing out in a field, doing nothing.


As an enclosed, secretive compound, the police had no way to know what they'd face. So they were ready for the worst. There's a guard tower in the compound, lots of buildings - they could have been facing anyone.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by tirante


I never heard of armed tanks being used in the operation. Any news articles? [/*]

No tanks, but an armored personnel carrier.

CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polygamist.raid.ap/)

Tela Mange, a state Department of Public Safety spokeswoman, said officers are trained to protect themselves.

"Whenever we serve a search warrant, no matter where or when, we are always as prepared as possible so we can ensure the operational safety of the officers serving the warrant, as well as the safety of those who are on the property in question," Mange said.

The armored car was precautionary and designed to remove someone from the property, not to force entry onto the ranch, she said.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by Details
There was one armored vehicle, present to be used to evacuate someone whose life might be in danger. There were SWAT or similar standing by just in case. A reasonable precaution, even if not needed this time, given the history of cults and violence. Neither were needed, nor used. The media had a great time with photographs of them - standing out in a field, doing nothing.


As an enclosed, secretive compound, the police had no way to know what they'd face. So they were ready for the worst. There's a guard tower in the compound, lots of buildings - they could have been facing anyone. [/*]

Saw you posted while I was getting the link.

It was a reasonable precaution... Given that they were entering a walled compound, NO idea if the people inside were armed. You're talking about a compound about 200 miles (which isn't far, in Texas) from the site of Waco.

[Debb]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


Debb - you too?! :D This little flashback is off topic so I'll make it short.

My ex-husband was in radio and we went to a lot of concerts and got backstage to meet the performers.

Around the time Donny and Marie had their TV show, they went out on tour with all the Osmond brothers. IIRC, D and M were in their teens - I clearly recall that Marie had a big wad of gum in her mouth backstage after the show!

Anyway, I was so completely impressed with that family. D and M were a bit young and preoccupied backstage, but the older brothers were some of the warmest, most genuine celebrities I've ever met.

All their wives were backstage, as were all the children. I remember that when it was time for the group to leave the theater, the children were given the word and you've never seen such a polite and orderly departure of such a large group of young children.

I just remember being so impressed with how they all seemed ... happy, healthy, and very loving of one another. My family was just about the polar opposite of that, so it really stuck with me.

The entire Osmond clan was on Oprah recently, right after their father died. I sniffled through that entire dang show! All those people, so many years later, still together, still happy and healthy and taking care of one another.

I'd have to say that the Osmonds are at the other extreme from Jeffs' followers in terms of what it means to be Mormon.

Edited to add: Guess I didn't make it that short after all. :punch: [/*]

Thanks for sharing! I enjoyed seeing them on Oprah too.
Donny did have some hard times growing up though. I discovered this when reading his autobiography that came out in the late 1990's. It gives good insight inside their family.
Their family has brought about my positive opinion of the LDS.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


I'll link:

Texas Statutes:Family Code Ch 261 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000261.00.htm)

and

Family Code Ch 262 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000262.00.htm)

These are in legal-speak, the CPS guidelines are more reader-friendly.

I found of interest:



I haven't heard this one stated, but, it appears that under Texas law, if they have no means of identifying those children, they were perfectly within the law to remove them. I don't know when they started the name games, but if they started during the investigation before the children were removed... [/*]

They weren't abandoned.
There was a petition filed and this is the law :
§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that
requests permission to take possession of a child without prior
notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a
person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to
satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical
health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of
neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be
contrary to the child's welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical
health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under
Subchapter C; and
(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the
circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made
to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child.
Doesn't say anything about identification.

[Details]

1. There is immediate danger to the safety of every child in the compound. Yeah, really. Being raised as pedophile fodder is not safe. Leaving children with parents playing shell games, with safe homes and a record of shuffling children between states is not safe. Not in the least because it's likely that they are not with their parents, and we have no knowledge of who the parents are and if they gave permission or not.

2. There is no time - because there's no way to know who the parents really are, given all the shell games, the records, etc. - can't have a hearing until you know who the parents are.

3. There is no safe alternative to removing the children.


I loved the guidelines about when it's safe to leave them - when the non-abusive parent has both intent and means to protect them from harm - you read the guidelines of unsafe parents, and it pretty much describes the entire FLDS cult.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
1. There is immediate danger to the safety of every child in the compound. Yeah, really. Being raised as pedophile fodder is not safe. Leaving children with parents playing shell games, with safe homes and a record of shuffling children between states is not safe. Not in the least because it's likely that they are not with their parents, and we have no knowledge of who the parents are and if they gave permission or not.

2. There is no time - because there's no way to know who the parents really are, given all the shell games, the records, etc. - can't have a hearing until you know who the parents are.

3. There is no safe alternative to removing the children.


I loved the guidelines about when it's safe to leave them - when the non-abusive parent has both intent and means to protect them from harm - you read the guidelines of unsafe parents, and it pretty much describes the entire FLDS cult. [/*]

The men said they'd leave. All they did was drag them out - there were no reasonable efforts, seeing pregnant teenagers is not evidence of immediate risk.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
The men said they'd leave. All they did was drag them out - there were no reasonable efforts, seeing pregnant teenagers is not evidence of immediate risk. [/*]The men were not the only problem - not remotely. Pregnant teenagers alone is not sufficient evidence. But that was enough for a search warrent, which did find the evidence.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles


They weren't abandoned.
There was a petition filed and this is the law :
§ 262.101. FILING PETITION BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF
CHILD. An original suit filed by a governmental entity that
requests permission to take possession of a child without prior
notice and a hearing must be supported by an affidavit sworn to by a
person with personal knowledge and stating facts sufficient to
satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that:
(1) there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of the child or the child has been a victim of neglect or sexual abuse and that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare;
(2) there is no time, consistent with the physical health or safety of the child, for a full adversary hearing under Subchapter C; and
(3) reasonable efforts, consistent with the
circumstances and providing for the safety of the child, were made to prevent or eliminate the need for the removal of the child.
Doesn't say anything about identification. [/*]

1) There WAS an immediate danger, as defined by chapter 262, which I quoted on the Mother's Day Board thread, now FLDS Children thread...
(*) In determining whether there is an immediate danger to the physical health or safety of a child, the court may consider whether the child's household includes a person who has:
(1) abused or neglected another child in a manner that caused serious injury to or the death of the other child; or
(2) sexually abused another child.

(Your quote is Chapter 262.101, mine is 262.102.)
Texas Family Code, Chapter 262 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000262.00.htm)

So, given the evidence of a number of pregnant teens, any reasonable, intelligent person could deduce that SOMEONE on the ranch was sexually abusing children.

2) There WAS no time, I think we ALL can agree that the sexual abuse of a child is one of the most terrible crimes you can commit. Leaving the children to be further abused would be inexcusable.

And,

3) What reasonable efforts would you suggest? Sure, the men volunteered to leave... but how many man hours of the state taxpayer's money do you suggest would be needed to monitor a compound of that size, to be sure they don't return? There are TOWNS smaller than that ranch. How do you suggest they ensure the children are still THERE when court proceedings begin? How do you keep the mothers (and I DO use that term loosely) of underage girls from sending them off to Utah to be married to old men? I've thought about it, and haven't been able to come up with a way to protect the children without removing them.

Also, scroll down to section 201. This is what happens after the hearing, by the statute:

(c) If the court finds sufficient evidence to satisfy a
person of ordinary prudence and caution that there is a continuing danger to the physical health or safety of the child and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child, the court shall issue an appropriate temporary order under Chapter 105. The court shall require each parent, alleged father, or relative of the child before the court to submit the proposed child placement resources form provided under Section 261.307, if the form has not been previously provided, and provide the Department of Family and Protective Services with information necessary to locate any other absent parent, alleged father, or relative of the child. The court shall inform each parent, alleged father, or relative of the child before the court that the person's failure to submit the proposed child placement resources form will not delay any court proceedings relating to the child. The court shall inform each parent in open court that parental and custodial rights and duties may be subject to restriction or to termination unless the parent or parents are willing and able to provide the child with a safe environment.

By law, the parents, including the father or any potential fathers, MUST be identified. And, it's very clear... If the parents are unwilling to provide a safe environment, their parental rights will be terminated.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


1) There WAS an immediate danger, as defined by chapter 262, which I quoted on the Mother's Day Board thread, now FLDS Children thread...


(Your quote is Chapter 262.101, mine is 262.102.)
Texas Family Code, Chapter 262 (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/FA/content/htm/fa.005.00.000262.00.htm)

So, given the evidence of a number of pregnant teens, any reasonable, intelligent person could deduce that SOMEONE on the ranch was sexually abusing children.

2) There WAS no time, I think we ALL can agree that the sexual abuse of a child is one of the most terrible crimes you can commit. Leaving the children to be further abused would be inexcusable.

And,

3) What reasonable efforts would you suggest? Sure, the men volunteered to leave... but how many man hours of the state taxpayer's money do you suggest would be needed to monitor a compound of that size, to be sure they don't return? There are TOWNS smaller than that ranch. How do you suggest they ensure the children are still THERE when court proceedings begin? How do you keep the mothers (and I DO use that term loosely) of underage girls from sending them off to Utah to be married to old men? I've thought about it, and haven't been able to come up with a way to protect the children without removing them.

Also, scroll down to section 201. This is what happens after the hearing, by the statute:



By law, the parents, including the father or any potential fathers, MUST be identified. And, it's very clear... If the parents are unwilling to provide a safe environment, their parental rights will
be terminated. [/*]

That part of statute isn't in reference to removal !! It's a definition, all kids they feel are abused are not removed. For example, children are not supposed to be removed for emotional abuse because it's too discretionary. Read the petition written by lawyers.
Based on social workers that were at the shelters, they're in more danger from their protectors. The state's case is based on innuendos and suppositions.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles


That part of statute isn't in reference to removal !! It's a definition, all kids they feel are abused are not removed. For example, children are not supposed to be removed for emotional abuse because it's too discretionary. Read the petition written by lawyers.
Based on social workers that were at the shelters, they're in more danger from their protectors. The state's case is based on innuendos and suppositions. [/*]

:sighs:

You're correct, it isn't in reference to removal. It's the definition of IMMEDIATE THREAT. The children were removed because there was at least one unidentified adult in the household who had sexually molested another child, which is within the definition of immediate threat.

As I've said, I can't get the petition to load, do you have another link where it's located?

And, as I've stated, I've got my doubts about the social workers statements. The fact that they went to the press before going to CPS or other government authorities makes me wonder. I give very little weight to unsigned complaints. Let it be investigated, and get back to me on that one.

The state's case is based on pregnant teenage girls. It's based on broken bones in very young children, which need to be investigated before they can be dismissed. The state's case is based on the attitude that no child is too young for sex, if the parent consents. (Paraphrased from an interview with Willie Jessop.)

I'm still waiting to hear ANYBODY come up with a reasonable solution to the situation that would have worked without removing the children.

[John7878]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


:sighs:

I'm still waiting to hear ANYBODY come up with a reasonable solution to the situation that would have worked without removing the children. [/*]

Locate the underage abused girls.

Test them for DNA to see who the fathers are.

Arrest the fathers.

See you can arrest people responsible AFTER they have committed a crime.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by John7878


Locate the underage abused girls.

Test them for DNA to see who the fathers are.

Arrest the fathers.

See you can arrest people responsible AFTER they have committed a crime. [/*]

That is a great idea, but won't work if none of the girls or parents will produce documentation for their age or admit who the father is . Wouldn't it have been great if it was so simple. There is another sect case in Texas where the man is accused of molesting his step daughter, and they seem to know her age...link to this story is posted on today's thread just after lunch.

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
Locate the underage abused girls.

Test them for DNA to see who the fathers are.

Arrest the fathers.

See you can arrest people responsible AFTER they have committed a crime. [/*]OK. So, pedophiles get to keep their little girls while we do DNA, work up court papers, etc.? And we think that they'll just sit there and wait for us to do this - or do you support turning the compound into some type of prison camp? Because FLDS move across borders - both state and national - quite often to avoid being held accountable for their actions. Do you think either the molester or the victim will still be at that compound when we come back? Do we think the victim will be left unhurt?

So - I'll predict a next step. Take the children who were abused, but not all the rest. OK - any guess what happens when you go to a pedophile, and remove his targeted child, and leave other children there? Anyone want to guess that he is just celibate? Let alone that he stays there and waits for you to arrest him and remove his children? "Awww shucks - they took my new 14 year old sex toy away! I guess I'll just sit here, wait for DNA and arrest, and leave all these nice little children here, that are free for the taking, alone to play."

Anyone think we should ever trust a pedophile with children just because he hasn't yet abused those particular children (if he hasn't - abuse doesn't leave a mark, children are told to lie - how do we know who the abused children are - aside from those where it's obvious?)?


The records show these men taking girls at very young ages - FLDS's own records. Court cases and testimony says that they don't always just stop with their wives. There's good reason why CPS does not EVER leave a child in a house with a pedophile, nor in a house where a pedophile has free control of the children, whether or not that pedophile has abused that particular child or not. They say it themselves - there's no such thing as an underage marriage - never too young.

[John7878]

Originally posted by Details
OK. So, pedophiles get to keep their little girls while we do DNA, work up court papers, etc.?. [/*]

How would they do that if they are in custody getting their DNA checked???

I didn't say anything about leaving the underage girls there.

And I believe the police can tell you 'not to leave town' if they are investigating a crime.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


And THEN what? Wait for the NEXT BATCH of underaged abused girls to be located? How often should these 3 steps you suggest be taken ... weekly? ... monthly? ... quarterly?

And proof of abuse is the delivery of another child to be raised by the cult?

Great plan. [/*]

If the guilty parties are in jail, who's going to be there to abuse the kids?

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
How would they do that if they are in custody getting their DNA checked???

I didn't say anything about leaving the underage girls there.

And I believe the police can tell you 'not to leave town' if they are investigating a crime. [/*]It had sounded like you wanted to leave all children not known to be abused behind. That's underaged girls. If you want everyone to be taken - that's what they did.


The police can tell you - and FLDS can run. They have their safe houses (per their own documentation), and a history of doing so (Jeffs, for the most notable example).

[walton]

Originally posted by John7878


How would they do that if they are in custody getting their DNA checked???

I didn't say anything about leaving the underage girls there.

And I believe the police can tell you 'not to leave town' if they are investigating a crime. [/*]

These folks have been know to move huge buildings in the dark of the night. Do you think that a request to be good and not leave town would actually be honored?


I don't.

[walton]

Originally posted by Details
It had sounded like you wanted to leave all children not known to be abused behind. That's underaged girls. If you want everyone to be taken - that's what they did.


The police can tell you - and FLDS can run. They have their safe houses (per their own documentation), and a history of doing so (Jeffs, for the most notable example). [/*]

Top that with their own local Boss Hogg crew back home. Local LE, Judges, lawyers, mayor. They wouldn't give anyone up. They sent monies to Warren while he was on the run.

[John7878]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


And THEN what? Wait for the NEXT BATCH of underaged abused girls to be located? How often should these 3 steps you suggest be taken ... weekly? ... monthly? ... quarterly?

And proof of abuse is the delivery of another child to be raised by the cult?

Great plan. [/*]

It must be a great plan, it looks like what the authorities are doing.

Remove all the kids and then wait for all the moms to have the next batch.

The problem with these people seem to be the current leaders.
They are the ones that need to be removed, and possibly replaced with others that the rest of them will listen to.

Like maybe the guy that testified against Jeffs in his trial.

[Katprint]

There are two separate issues here:

1) Criminal cases against persons suspected of statutory rape, bigamy, child endangerment, transporting minors across state lines for immoral purposes, whatever.

2) Child protection cases to protect minors from abuse and exploitation.

Regardless whether criminal charges are ever filed, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, etc., it is clear that something needs to be done to protect the children. At a minimum, the unpaid labor for the FLDS farms and businesses - in violation of various child labor laws - needs to end as does any enticement of underage girls into consensual statutory rape. (Age 16 with parents' written consent is only good for a LEGAL marriage; spiritual but not legal marriage means the age of consent remains age 17.) Additionally, if these kids are to have any meaningful life choices, they will need access to genuine birth records to obtain social security numbers for lawful employment, to obtain drivers' licenses, to obtain passports, etc.

By the way, the police do not have authority to prevent anyone from leaving their jurisdiction while they investigate a crime. A person who has been arrested may have that restriction imposed as a condition of their bail, and "fleeing" the jurisdiction may be introduced as evidence of knowledge of guilt, but the police simply lack authority to enforce an order not to leave town.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
It must be a great plan, it looks like what the authorities are doing.

Remove all the kids and then wait for all the moms to have the next batch.

The problem with these people seem to be the current leaders.
They are the ones that need to be removed, and possibly replaced with others that the rest of them will listen to.

Like maybe the guy that testified against Jeffs in his trial. [/*]Nope. Authorities have removed the children from danger first. Now is the investigation time, to find out who is guilty of what. Then they can arrest and prosecute the guilty - so they at the least won't be around to abuse the next batch.

We can't choose the cult's leaders for them. All we can do is prosecute them when they break the law, including laws against child abuse. But what adults choose to believe is not something we can change.

I think we need to make laws to establish freedom of movement - a compound like this, isolated, with a guard tower - I think that should be illegal right there. It's implied if not actual prevention of freedom of movement. When a child is beaten or abused - no way can they get to the police. When a mother decides to leave - she can be stopped. If the police want to keep an eye on possible crime - they can't so much as drive by the houses. I think that's giving too much of a perfect breeding ground for crime. The trick is how to define this - but I don't like the whole idea of any compound.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


:sighs:

You're correct, it isn't in reference to removal. It's the definition of IMMEDIATE THREAT. The children were removed because there was at least one unidentified adult in the household who had sexually molested another child, which is within the definition of immediate threat.

As I've said, I can't get the petition to load, do you have another link where it's located?

And, as I've stated, I've got my doubts about the social workers statements. The fact that they went to the press before going to CPS or other government authorities makes me wonder. I give very little weight to unsigned complaints. Let it be investigated, and get back to me on that one.

The state's case is based on pregnant teenage girls. It's based on broken bones in very young children, which need to be investigated before they can be dismissed. The state's case is based on the attitude that no child is too young for sex, if the parent consents. (Paraphrased from an interview with Willie Jessop.)

I'm still waiting to hear ANYBODY come up with a reasonable solution to the situation that would have worked without removing the children. [/*]

Ok, you doubt the social worker's stories.
They submitted reports, an elected commisioner released the information.

Commissioner, Precinct 1 - Jack Dawson
http://www.co.comal.tx.us/Comal_County_Precinct_1.htm

Dawson, a Comal County commissioner, said the employees had the right to provide information to the board and said his release of copies of the statements to the Express-News didn't violate their confidentiality agreements.

These words are those of the commissioner.
"What they saw was so horrendous, they had to report it to the board," Dawson said. "We were taken aback. I have every confidence their stories are accurate. Our people are professionals, with years and years of service in their fields."

[John7878]

Originally posted by Details
Now is the investigation time, to find out who is guilty of what. Then they can arrest and prosecute the guilty - so they at the least won't be around to abuse the next batch.
[/*]


This will take YEARS to get done. So babies that were taken will be given back to Mothers that they won't even recognize!?!??!

:confused:

[Details]

Originally posted by John7878
This will take YEARS to get done. So babies that were taken will be given back to Mothers that they won't even recognize!?!??!

:confused: [/*]I guess you haven't been reading. The mothers are allowed to visit. Heck, the fathers are too. Even if it's only their word that this is their child until DNA comes back. Nor is there any rule that says that the child remains in care while the arrest, trial, etc. happens. The child will be cared for so long as it would be dangerous to let them go back to their parent. How long that is depends on the parents - if the parents bother coming to claim them, if the parents are willing to say they will stop abusing the children - it could be a pretty short time. If the parent remains committed to grooming them for a pedophile, or other child abuse, then they won't go back before nor after a verdict.


Where did you find a link or article or post suggesting that the children must be kept in foster care until the abuser tried and convicted? Are you thinking of evidence bins in the police department rather than witnesses at a criminal trial?

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
I guess you haven't been reading. The mothers are allowed to visit. Heck, the fathers are too. Even if it's only their word that this is their child until DNA comes back. Nor is there any rule that says that the child remains in care while the arrest, trial, etc. happens. The child will be cared for so long as it would be dangerous to let them go back to their parent. How long that is depends on the parents - if the parents bother coming to claim them, if the parents are willing to say they will stop abusing the children - it could be a pretty short time. If the parent remains committed to grooming them for a pedophile, or other child abuse, then they won't go back before nor after a verdict.


Where did you find a link or article or post suggesting that the children must be kept in foster care until the abuser tried and convicted? Are you thinking of evidence bins in the police department rather than witnesses at a criminal trial? [/*]

It doesn't depend on the parents, it depends on CPS. How long is before they have to come up with a permanency plan ? 9 months or 12 ? At that point they're supposed to return the child or start TPR proceedings. Where does your "expertise" come from Details ? Or so you just know everything ?

[evalles]

Originally posted by tirante


That would be better than girl babies being given to old men, when they are in their early teens; or boy babies being thrown into the streets, to ease the competition for under-aged "brides" among the horny old men.

Where is the concern for the child's welfare from such "mothers" (?) ?. [/*]

Post a factual link where a girl baby was given to an old man.
Another for a boy baby being thrown in the street.

Anything that isn't your opinion or based on hearsay.

[Details]

Both links have been posted. It's up to you to be willing to read them. Actually they've been quoted too - but I guess you didn't read that either.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by John7878


How would they do that if they are in custody getting their DNA checked???

I didn't say anything about leaving the underage girls there.

And I believe the police can tell you 'not to leave town' if they are investigating a crime. [/*]

So, you're advocating arresting every male, without proof of wrongdoing? Keeping them in custody for the month it'll take to get the DNA tests back? (Or more, it's a tough DNA case, with all the inbreeding.) That's against the law.

Also, how do you suggest they identify the abused underage girls, without taking them to be medically checked? Ask them? These girls can't even tell their AGES.

Need more details for that plan. How are you going to identify the girls, and what are you going to do to secure the safety of the children, who will likely be taken to other compounds out of the state or country to be married off there?

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
It doesn't depend on the parents, it depends on CPS. How long is before they have to come up with a permanency plan ? 9 months or 12 ? At that point they're supposed to return the child or start TPR proceedings. Where does your "expertise" come from Details ? Or so you just know everything ? [/*]Of course it depends on the parents - a parent that says, "I'm going to hand Jenny off to an old man for sex the minute she gets curves" will be far less likely to get their children back than one that says they will now protect their child from abuse and shows real steps as to how.

I know everything - didn't you know that? I'm actually Santa Claus - that's how I know who is naughty and who is nice.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles


Post a factual link where a girl baby was given to an old man.
Another for a boy baby being thrown in the street.

Anything that isn't your opinion or based on hearsay. [/*]

Is it the word "babies" that set this one off for you?

At what age is it acceptable to drop a boy child out of the car on the side of the road, with no idea how to function in the outside world? At what age is it OK to tell a boy that he's lost his chance of salvation and will not only be going to hell, but that he's dead to his family? Eight? Eleven? Thirteen? How about fifteen?

At what age is it okay to give a girl to an adult for sex? Ten? Thirteen? Fifteen? According to Willie Jeffs, any age is okay, if the parents consent. (Of course, he didn't want that bit aired, but that's another rant.)

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


Is it the word "babies" that set this one off for you?

At what age is it acceptable to drop a boy child out of the car on the side of the road, with no idea how to function in the outside world? At what age is it OK to tell a boy that he's lost his chance of salvation and will not only be going to hell, but that he's dead to his family? Eight? Eleven? Thirteen? How about fifteen?

At what age is it okay to give a girl to an adult for sex? Ten? Thirteen? Fifteen? According to Willie Jeffs, any age is okay, if the parents consent. (Of course, he didn't want that bit aired, but that's another rant.) [/*]

Right, the use of the word babies wasn't factual and was used to provoke emotion.
I haven't read anything that shows that boys that young were kicked out on the streets.
There are many parents that have told their 17 or 18 year olds that think they know it all, that if they didn't want to follow the parents rules they should leave. Usually because they don't want the smaller children to be influenced by the older siblings actions, like drug use or drinking.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Of course it depends on the parents - a parent that says, "I'm going to hand Jenny off to an old man for sex the minute she gets curves" will be far less likely to get their children back than one that says they will now protect their child from abuse and shows real steps as to how.

I know everything - didn't you know that? I'm actually Santa Claus - that's how I know who is naughty and who is nice. [/*]

You must be, since you can determine that 464 kids were abused without ever laying eyes on them and also that their mothers are also brainwashed, rapist's assistants.
That sounds a lot more fun than my job. We spend all day tied to data bases locating people that don't want to be found with practically nothing to go on.
It was fun in the beginning, but not nearly as exciting as being Santa.

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles


Right, the use of the word babies wasn't factual and was used to provoke emotion.
I haven't read anything that shows that boys that young were kicked out on the streets.
There are many parents that have told their 17 or 18 year olds that think they know it all, that if they didn't want to follow the parents rules they should leave. Usually because they don't want the smaller children to be influenced by the older siblings actions, like drug use or drinking. [/*]

mazeministry.com (http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/lostboys.htm)

They can't return to their families because church members are forbidden from associating with them. Sometimes, parents secretly send money. But mostly they are on their own, homeless, some as young as 13.

boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/19/polygamys_lost_boys_expelled_from_only_life_they_k new/)

Gideon is one of the ''Lost Boys," a group of more than 400 teenagers -- some as young as 13 -- who authorities in Utah and Arizona say have fled or been driven out of the polygamous enclaves of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City over the last four years.

His stated offenses: wearing short-sleeved shirts, listening to compact discs, and having a girlfriend. Other boys say they were booted out for going to movies, watching television, and staying out past curfew.

Some say they were sometimes given as little as two hours' notice before being driven to St. George or nearby Hurricane, Utah, and left like unwanted pets along the road.


wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy)

wakeupamerica.com (http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/04/forgotten-children-of-flds-polygamist.html)

The mothers say the boys are "dead" to them, because the "prophet" has decided they are no longer a member of the family.

Most of the Lost Boys are between the ages of 13 and 21 when banished from or pressured to leave compounds such as the Yearning for Zion (YFZ) Ranch.

They were raised to fear the outside world, fear authorities and have a very limited education, but because men in the FLDS sect must have at least three wives, the women to men ratio wouldn't allow for that if the boy children were all allowed to stay and with some of the FLDS men having up to 10 wives, that makes it even more necessary to send these children packing, out into a world they have been taught to fear, to sleep on the street.

relegionnews.com (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17897/lost-boys-win-land-cash)

Brent Jeffs filed the first lawsuit on July 29, 2004, alleging Jeffs and two of his brothers had sexually abused him in the 1980s. Brent Jeffs claimed his uncles would leave church services, escort him out of a basement room where children gathered for Sunday school lessons and then sodomize him in a nearby bathroom.

Brent Jeffs alleged his uncles told him they were “doing God’s work” and that he was not to tell anyone about their acts.


Brent Jeffs was five or six years old when this happened.

Now, whether it matters to you or not, while these stories are from the Utah/Arizona camps, instead of Texas, it's the same ringleaders. If it hasn't happened in Texas, then where are the older teenage boys?

I've tried being patient, I really have. I've tried to believe that you speak from an honest concern for the children, but if all you have to offer to this board is your personal crusade, then maybe "Iggy" is the best option.

[evalles]

Originally posted by tirante


Wrong!

It was a response to your use of the word, "babies", not mine ("..So babies that were taken will..."). I posted "when" the girl babies reach their early teens. I will admit that I dropped the "when they reach their teens", in-re to boy babies.

A drop in attention to absolute perfect English; which you seem to require--as opposed to intent and meaning of a post. [/*]

How could you possibly think I even know anything about perfect English ?

[evalles]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


mazeministry.com (http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/polygamy/lostboys.htm)



boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/06/19/polygamys_lost_boys_expelled_from_only_life_they_k new/)



wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Boys_of_Polygamy)

wakeupamerica.com (http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/04/forgotten-children-of-flds-polygamist.html)



relegionnews.com (http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17897/lost-boys-win-land-cash)



Brent Jeffs was five or six years old when this happened.

Now, whether it matters to you or not, while these stories are from the Utah/Arizona camps, instead of Texas, it's the same ringleaders. If it hasn't happened in Texas, then where are the older teenage boys?

I've tried being patient, I really have. I've tried to believe that you speak from an honest concern for the children, but if all you have to offer to this board is your personal crusade, then maybe "Iggy" is the best option. [/*]

This isn't about my personal crusade. When it's about my personal crusade it will be directed at CPS only. There's a lot more to this case than CPS alone. I haven't spent a lot of time reading about the FLDS. No one could make me shut up long enough to live like they do. I've read a little about the lost boys.
They say they were thrown out and left to fend for themselves and the other side said they were given the option of following the rules or leaving. Knowing teenagers I can see that happening. I'm sure these people have a lot less tolerance and a lot stricter rules. The article said something about how some have turned into juvenile delinquins, how do we know they weren't before ? Juvenile delinquints aren't known for their honesty. I'm not saying this is true in all the cases, but it's definitely possoble in some. How many teenage boys were on the ranch ?Where do they say the others are ?I have focused on hearing something, anything that supports actual abuse of these kids by these mothers at this compound.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


No source is good enough for her, nor does she bother investigating most of them.

She believes no one EXCEPT the FLDS 'parents.' She doesn't believe doctors, lawyers, government services or authorities, law enforcement, foster parents or other caregivers.

Cruelest of all, she doesn't believe the first-hand accounts by survivors -- women, lost boys, molested boys, young girls -- of FLDS abuse and crimes. She doesn't believe the books they've written, the movies they've made, or the horrible reality of their lives.

Nor does she believe the people who are working so hard to help those survivors tell their stories and receive the rehabilitation they need.

Hers is exactly the outlook that has allowed the FLDS cult and men like Warren Jeffs to not only survive, but to flourish.

Imagine how it feels to the survivors to know there are people out here who would return them to their tormentors if given the opportunity. [/*]

:beer: Right on sistah!!

I'm still not sure why everybody hasn't invoked the power of iggy.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


No source is good enough for her, nor does she bother investigating most of them.

She believes no one EXCEPT the FLDS 'parents.' She doesn't believe doctors, lawyers, government services or authorities, law enforcement, foster parents or other caregivers.

Cruelest of all, she doesn't believe the first-hand accounts by survivors -- women, lost boys, molested boys, young girls -- of FLDS abuse and crimes. She doesn't believe the books they've written, the movies they've made, or the horrible reality of their lives.

Nor does she believe the people who are working so hard to help those survivors tell their stories and receive the rehabilitation they need.

Hers is exactly the outlook that has allowed the FLDS cult and men like Warren Jeffs to not only survive, but to flourish.

Imagine how it feels to the survivors to know there are people out here who would return them to their tormentors if given the opportunity. [/*]

I believe the doctor hired by the state that said the children wer healthy and well taken care of.
I believe the lady that worked with them at the shelter that said they should help the children and their mothers.
I believe the psychiatrist that said in court that it would be traumatic for these kids to go into foster care.
I believe the social worker that said the kids showed no emotional signs that they were abused and that the mothers and their children were strongly bonded.
I believe the social worker that was actually there with the families and said the children should never have been removed from their mothers.
I believe the county commisioner that brought that information to light.
I believe the county employee that obviously got tired of the lies and said that nobody on the ranch was receiving welfare.
There are links to all these things, and they've been ignored.

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


I believe the doctor hired by the state that said the children wer healthy and well taken care of.
I believe the lady that worked with them at the shelter that said they should help the children and their mothers.
I believe the psychiatrist that said in court that it would be traumatic for these kids to go into foster care.
I believe the social worker that said the kids showed no emotional signs that they were abused and that the mothers and their children were strongly bonded.
I believe the social worker that was actually there with the families and said the children should never have been removed from their mothers.
I believe the county commisioner that brought that information to light.
I believe the county employee that obviously got tired of the lies and said that nobody on the ranch was receiving welfare.
There are links to all these things, and they've been ignored. [/*]

JMO/IMO Would you believe this?
http://www.smilesfordiversity.org/fischer.php

[lotty]

Originally posted by tirante
And I believe in the tooth fairy! [/*]

:biggrin: :D

[sheltiemom]

Originally posted by evalles


Post a factual link where a girl baby was given to an old man.
Another for a boy baby being thrown in the street.

Anything that isn't your opinion or based on hearsay. [/*]

AT LAST! Someone with a worse memory that I have! I have read the links on this thread and it is quoted in the links many times. Perhaps preteen and young teen boys left on the desert outside of town would be a better explanation than referring to them as babies. Do you REALLY not remember reading that in the links????

Perhaps girls 6 up being raped by their relatives,girls 12 up being "spiritually" /not legally married to 35 aged - 90 yo men would be better than referring to them as babies.

HOWEVER, I do consider youngsters being left in the desert alone this young and youngsters being raped and illigally "married" this young as BABIES. But then at my age, I would probably consider yu a baby also. Also young boys filed suits agains Warren Jeffs for sexual molestation - and I believe there were other reports I have read about young boys being molested - perhaps in one of the books listed in the links that I have read.

I really have trouble believing you do not want ALL the children to be protected and not just the ones that are already impregnated. I am fairly sure most of those did not get pregnant on the first abuse. The sexual abuse just did not show up until then. The abnormal broken bones would not have been discovered had they left some of the children there. When they found out later, I am quite sure theseabusers woujld have sent the abused to another FLDS location perhaps in Mexico where they could not be easily retrieved or even found., Canada or the numerous other USA locations.

Lots of interesting reading in the links since you like links, click on Links at the top of this board and try reading them. You will be amazed at the history of abuse and murder committed by those in control (and struggling for control) in the FLDS.

:seeya:

[evalles]

Originally posted by lotty


JMO/IMO Would you believe this?
http://www.smilesfordiversity.org/fischer.php [/*]


What's not to believe ? He's a dentist that left 11 years ago that things got much worse when Jeffs took over several years ago and he's helping the 'lost boys'.
Does that mean that things were different or better before Jeffs ?

You've probably seen this, I really don't know who's lying and who's telling the truth.
I do know there's more than one side to every story.


http://fldsview.blogspot.com/2008/05/lost-and-found-boys.html

[sheltiemom]

Originally posted by Details

---------[I know everything - didn't you know that? I'm actually Santa Claus - that's how I know who is naughty and who is nice. [/*]

So that is why I enjoy reading your posts! I have a complaint about last Christmas --but then you already know about that....I am really trying to be good this year and hope that complaint will be rectified Dec 2008.

[evalles]

Originally posted by sheltiemom


AT LAST! Someone with a worse memory that I have! I have read the links on this thread and it is quoted in the links many times. Perhaps preteen and young teen boys left on the desert outside of town would be a better explanation than referring to them as babies. Do you REALLY not remember reading that in the links????

Perhaps girls 6 up being raped by their relatives,girls 12 up being "spiritually" /not legally married to 35 aged - 90 yo men would be better than referring to them as babies.

HOWEVER, I do consider youngsters being left in the desert alone this young and youngsters being raped and illigally "married" this young as BABIES. But then at my age, I would probably consider yu a baby also. Also young boys filed suits agains Warren Jeffs for sexual molestation - and I believe there were other reports I have read about young boys being molested - perhaps in one of the books listed in the links that I have read.

I really have trouble believing you do not want ALL the children to be protected and not just the ones that are already impregnated. I am fairly sure most of those did not get pregnant on the first abuse. The sexual abuse just did not show up until then. The abnormal broken bones would not have been discovered had they left some of the children there. When they found out later, I am quite sure theseabusers woujld have sent the abused to another FLDS location perhaps in Mexico where they could not be easily retrieved or even found., Canada or the numerous other USA locations.

Lots of interesting reading in the links since you like links, click on Links at the top of this board and try reading them. You will be amazed at the history of abuse and murder committed by those in control (and struggling for control) in the FLDS.

:seeya: [/*]

They're not trying to make sure justice is served by having someone arrested to protect others from the same 'fate', they are suing them for money. $$$ Copies of this book are flying off the shelves.$$$ The person that wrote the book is in charge of a $100 million trust. $$$ I don't know if it's true or not, but they're getting rich anyway.

[sheltiemom]

Originally posted by evalles


Right, the use of the word babies wasn't factual and was used to provoke emotion.
I haven't read anything that shows that boys that young were kicked out on the streets.
There are many parents that have told their 17 or 18 year olds that think they know it all, that if they didn't want to follow the parents rules they should leave. Usually because they don't want the smaller children to be influenced by the older siblings actions, like drug use or drinking. [/*]

Where is your link at the parents left 17-18 year old boys on the streets because of drug use or drinking.

I read much younger boys left on the road in the desert for maybe kissing a girl, talking to a girl, or because the father, profet, had a message from God that TOLD him the boy had done something against the "rules". The only alcohol in the town seems to be in the hands of the adults in the form of wine that I have read. The children are not allowed to go to town - except with the work crews or father until they are dumped out in the desert. These well described in the links "lost boys" then with no street smarts and no survival skills do get to SLC or other towns and get involved with drugs and alcohol - after they have been kicked out. No where have I read that they were kicked out for those offenses. If you have read such, please furnish me the link. I try to read ALL links to keep up. Thanks in advance for your link. No need to reply if you do not have a link.

[evalles]

Originally posted by sheltiemom


Where is your link at the parents left 17-18 year old boys on the streets because of drug use or drinking.

I read much younger boys left on the road in the desert for maybe kissing a girl, talking to a girl, or because the father, profet, had a message from God that TOLD him the boy had done something against the "rules". The only alcohol in the town seems to be in the hands of the adults in the form of wine that I have read. The children are not allowed to go to town - except with the work crews or father until they are dumped out in the desert. These well described in the links "lost boys" then with no street smarts and no survival skills do get to SLC or other towns and get involved with drugs and alcohol - after they have been kicked out. No where have I read that they were kicked out for those offenses. If you have read such, please furnish me the link. I try to read ALL links to keep up. Thanks in advance for your link. No need to reply if you do not have a link. [/*]

OMG. I was talking about parents in general, not the FLDS.
Learn to read. While your at it, post those links, I'd like to see if they're based on facts or hearsay.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
I believe the doctor hired by the state that said the children wer healthy and well taken care of.
I believe the lady that worked with them at the shelter that said they should help the children and their mothers.
I believe the psychiatrist that said in court that it would be traumatic for these kids to go into foster care.
I believe the social worker that said the kids showed no emotional signs that they were abused and that the mothers and their children were strongly bonded.
I believe the social worker that was actually there with the families and said the children should never have been removed from their mothers.
I believe the county commisioner that brought that information to light.
I believe the county employee that obviously got tired of the lies and said that nobody on the ranch was receiving welfare.
There are links to all these things, and they've been ignored. [/*]In other words, you believe only and exclusively the people who are pro-FLDS - and no one else.


An unbiased person, someone interested in the truth believes information based on credibility. A person who wants to reinforce their prejudices believes information based on whether or not it furthers their prejudices.



To decide all the children thrown on the side of the road, all the rape victims who escape to the police, all of the fathers and husbands thrown out and missing their families - all of them must be lying, and only the bits and pieces said by some that reinforce your position are credible (some of the people listed above said things you've decided are not credible - the same psych you refer to was the one who said the children should not return to their parents) - just unbeliveable how much some are willing to ignore pain for their own agendas.

[Details]

Originally posted by sheltiemom
So that is why I enjoy reading your posts! I have a complaint about last Christmas --but then you already know about that....I am really trying to be good this year and hope that complaint will be rectified Dec 2008. [/*]It won't. You left chocolate chip cookies with WHITE chocolate chips! White chocolate is not chocolate. You're on the naughty list for life.

[sheltiemom]

Originally posted by evalles


They're not trying to make sure justice is served by having someone arrested to protect others from the same 'fate', they are suing them for money. $$$ Copies of this book are flying off the shelves.$$$ The person that wrote the book is in charge of a $100 million trust. $$$ I don't know if it's true or not, but they're getting rich anyway. [/*])

_________

It sounds like you would only believe (or believe authorities should investigate ) if you were present and saw the abuse with your own eyes. Sexual and physical and mental abuse seldom have witnesses. I would rather a child of mine be believed enough to remove him/her to a hopefully safer place and his allegations be investigated. I would not want him left in a sect with so much mindless mind controlled robotic women, men and children.

Abuse can happen anywhere. But that is because this is a very imperfect world. I would gladly take my chances rather than leave a child of mine, a relative, friend, or just an acquaintance in a situation where the abuse is happening. The mind control alone in this sect is abusive and all the children should be protected from that alone. Any adult who wants to leave should also be helped. Unfortunately the adults can only be helped if they are willing to let it happen. It is pretty clear from watching the police follow news media around C.C and Hildale and who closely watched they are by all the towns people that there is no way in he!! they are going to let the women and children leave on their own accord.

Since we cannot arrest all the abusive men and abusive mothers until they can be identified, then lets protect the children. Do you really want to leave ANY child behind when there is so much physical, mental, sexual abuse going on in this very much closed community. A community where to question the husband, father, uncle, bishop, is to have your child taken away from you and given to another man/woman household without any investigation....just the word of Warren Jeffs or Merril Jessop or their henchmen??

If so, I am happy to not be a child of yours. Of course, I am sure you are happy I am not a child of yours - you would probably consider me a delinquent -- especially if Merrill Jessop said God reaveled to him that I was a delinquent.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles


They're not trying to make sure justice is served by having someone arrested to protect others from the same 'fate', they are suing them for money. $$$ Copies of this book are flying off the shelves.$$$ The person that wrote the book is in charge of a $100 million trust. $$$ I don't know if it's true or not, but they're getting rich anyway. [/*](emphasis mine)

Yeah, doesn't that say it all. You don't know if it's true, you don't even know that most don't file for a darn thing, but hey, you'll ignore them without knowing the facts.

It's not true. The enourmous trust is the FLDS bank account, money for all FLDS members. Due to Jeffs abuse and mismanagement, the judge is appointing different members to run the trust. There's nothing in it for them but a lot of hard work and making sure the money is spent a bit more right - no trustee can lay hands on that money without the agreement of the others.

There's one book - not written by one of the lost boys - if it matters. The book was written by some brave women who escaped - to educate the world about what is going on. It's not set to be a major moneymaker, and the authors donate time and money to helping other FLDS escapees and discards.


You'd think with this thing so much a focus of your thought on the case, you'd spend a little time to find out if it was true. And maybe think about why all the hundreds of ex-FLDS who have written no book tell the same story.

[sheltiemom]

Originally posted by evalles


OMG. I was talking about parents in general, not the FLDS.
Learn to read. While your at it, post those links, I'd like to see if they're based on facts or hearsay. [/*]

OMG! Did I read the title of this thead wrong? I though we were talking about the FLDS sect. I did not know we are now talking about just children in general. Of course there are delinquent chilren, teens, adults, parents - that any fool knows.

I refuse to post a link for someone who continues to argue points where links have already been given numerous times. Go to http:boards.insessiontrials.com. Then FLDS children. Then Sticky: Links only. That was the beginningn of my sources. I have read them all. Have you. If you had, you would not be asking for the same links OVER AND OVER all thru your posts. It really gets tiresome when someone keeps giving the same links over and over as tho it is something new - I click on it and find it is the same and already read. I really do not have the time to re-read the same links over and over. I have noticed it is rare that you post a link other the the FLDS blogspot. Even when a link is given for you you seldom address the facts given to you.

I have read all the links posted, even the FLDS BLOGSPOT that you posted and several books on this sect. Have you?? You seem to have a mental block on anything except the FLDS folks blogspot, their attorneys and FLDS spokespersons. Those FLDS women Iinterviewed in the media really, really, really cannot even carry on a conversation.

I keep an open mind up to the point I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Then no one is going to change it or control it. I just feel so sorry for the women and children being brought up without that opportunity as those of the FLDS.

gETTING more difficult to type. One of my cats is telling me it is bedtime by interferring with my typing and view of the screen and keyboard.....so goodnight! The doggies are also wanting to go to bed and they RULE!
:seeya:

[sheltiemom]

Originally posted by Details
It won't. You left chocolate chip cookies with WHITE chocolate chips! White chocolate is not chocolate. You're on the naughty list for life. [/*]

Oh my gosh! Sheltie Kelly tried to tell me Sheltie Cassie was fibbing. Cassie told me you liked white chocolate. I know that is not REAL chocolate. Any REAL chocolate chocolate=chip is my very favorite cookie. If you will just reconsider I will never let Cassie influence me again. You will only get the real McCoy. Cassie's treats will be severly limited until I get off the naughty list.

[Details]

:lol:

[John7878]

Originally posted by Rainkiss


So, you're advocating arresting every male, without proof of wrongdoing? Keeping them in custody for the month it'll take to get the DNA tests back? (Or more, it's a tough DNA case, with all the inbreeding.) That's against the law. [/*]

So is obstructing an investigation.

Originally posted by Rainkiss

Also, how do you suggest they identify the abused underage girls, without taking them to be medically checked? Ask them? These girls can't even tell their AGES. [/*]

If they can't tell ages how are they saying 14yr old girls are having babies?!?!?!

Plus they didn't take JUST the girls, they took every one of them.
Even babies, that were not in immediate danger of being abused.
Even you have to admit they cast a pretty wide net.

Originally posted by Rainkiss

Need more details for that plan. How are you going to identify the girls, and what are you going to do to secure the safety of the children, who will likely be taken to other compounds out of the state or country to be married off there? [/*]

How are THEY identifying the girls??

How much manpower are they using NOW to secure the compound??
Did all the 'dads' sneak out of the compound after they raided it and were looking for them?

[John7878]

Originally posted by grammybear

I am not to worried about the foster system in Texas because Texas knows the whole world is watching what happens with this group.
You are going to find good and bad no matter where you go, but instead of looking at all the negative issues why don't we look at the positive side of CPS and what they are trying to do for these children.

jmoo [/*]

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/636332.html

SAN ANTONIO -- Mental health workers sent to help care for the women and children removed from a polygamist sect's West Texas ranch are criticizing Child Protective Services, saying the state's decision to seek custody of the children was unnecessary and traumatizing.

http://heartkeepercommonroom.blogspot.com/2008/05/mental-health-witnesses-confirm-that.html

All nine reports by employees of the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center expressed varying degrees of anger toward the state's child welfare agency for removing the children from their community, separating them from their mothers or for the way CPS workers conducted themselves at the shelter.

A few described ongoing tension between the two groups of social workers, including threats by CPS to have interfering MHMR workers arrested.

http://www.familykb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/foster-parents/2372/Mental-health-workers-rip-CPS-over-sect

"I have worked in Domestic Violence/Sexual Abuse programming for over 20 years and have never seen women and children treated this poorly, not to mention their civil rights being disregarded in this manner," one wrote.

Three reported that CPS workers lied to the mothers; one described it as a tactic to make separating them from their children go easier. Several said the mothers were denied access to their lawyers.

....One described it [the crowded, uncomfortable conditions at the first two shelters] as deliberate, a form of coercion to aid the investigation: "The more uncomfortable they were the more CPS thought they would talk."

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21403/flds-mental-health-workers

“The entire MH support staff was ‘fired’ the second week; we were sent home due to being ‘too compassionate,’ ” one report stated.

“We were literally astounded at what they told us,” Kite said. “They are trampling all over human decency and those people’s civil rights. … We should not just sit here and let it happen.”


And finally:
The written statements were given to the Hill Country MHMR board
anonymously because the workers had signed agreements not to disclose
what they had seen, said board member Jack Dawson.

Ahhh its all a BIG SECRET!! Shhhhh

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by John7878


So is obstructing an investigation.

If they can't tell ages how are they saying 14yr old girls are having babies?!?!?!

Plus they didn't take JUST the girls, they took every one of them.
Even babies, that were not in immediate danger of being abused.
Even you have to admit they cast a pretty wide net.

How are THEY identifying the girls??

How much manpower are they using NOW to secure the compound??
Did all the 'dads' sneak out of the compound after they raided it and were looking for them? [/*]

Yes, they cast a wide net. Per Texas law, "immediate danger" includes being left in a household where someone who has molested another child lives. They had evidence that someone in that household had molested at least one teenage girl. As there were multiple adult men, and the girls have been conditioned not to give any information to the authorities, they were all removed until the investigation is complete. Harsh? Certainly. Justified? I believe so. Let me spell this out nice and clear:

YOU DO NOT LEAVE A CHILD IN A HOME WHERE ANOTHER CHILD HAS BEEN SEXUALLY MOLESTED.

How are they identifying the girls? Well, first, they asked. They were given conflicting ages for the girls, and for many of the children. So, they asked for photo IDs. Apparently, they've finally received one, and CPS has informed the court that the girl is an adult. A judge will have to determine what happens to her baby, as he has already been declared a ward of the state. Pity they couldn't have come up with the license in the first place to spare the state of Texas at least part of the cost of this whole mess.

And, no, they likely haven't secured the compound. As I've said, you can't hold people unless you have evidence they committed a crime. You can neither arrest all the men, nor stand guard and keep them from their homes if the women and children were left there.

We do agree on one thing, though, obstructing an investigation is a crime. So, every adult claiming that their children are being held who has NOT provided DNA should be arrested for obstructing the investigation, yes?

[dsmith]

OK I have what some might think is a strange question

in the LDS doctrine and covenants 132
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

is it normal for the bible of any religion to name a person's first and last name or was this Joseph Smith just looking for a way to have as many wifes he wanted

[Rainkiss]

Originally posted by evalles



What's not to believe ? He's a dentist that left 11 years ago that things got much worse when Jeffs took over several years ago and he's helping the 'lost boys'.
Does that mean that things were different or better before Jeffs ?

You've probably seen this, I really don't know who's lying and who's telling the truth.
I do know there's more than one side to every story.


http://fldsview.blogspot.com/2008/05/lost-and-found-boys.html [/*]

News link, please? This is a blog written by an unnamed FLDS member, begun after the children were removed. Sorry, I was taught to always consider the source.

I'm still reading it through, there's a lot written here, but it gets the weight it deserves, the same as the FLDS "poor us, give us our children" websites.

FYI, I'm listening to both sides, and thank you for the link. I'm just still not convinced CPS was wrong.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by John7878

snipped

And finally:
The written statements were given to the Hill Country MHMR board
anonymously because the workers had signed agreements not to disclose
what they had seen, said board member Jack Dawson.

Ahhh its all a BIG SECRET!! Shhhhh [/*]


If the statements were anonymous, how can we be sure they were not written by FLDS women that were there?

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


They're not trying to make sure justice is served by having someone arrested to protect others from the same 'fate', they are suing them for money. $$$ Copies of this book are flying off the shelves.$$$ The person that wrote the book is in charge of a $100 million trust. $$$ I don't know if it's true or not, but they're getting rich anyway. [/*]

JMO IIRC They come from a situation where...LE will not help! LE will not do the job they are charged to do! They come from two states where it is extremely difficult to get anyone to do anything. There are numerous credible articles. Go find them.

Copies are flying off the shelves? Prove it.

Ms. Jessop is in charge of a $100 million trust? I thought Bruce Wisan was...and it is no longer worth $100 million. Prove Ms. Jessop is in charge of the UEP!

Prove any of them are getting rich...show me their bank statements.

As always JMO/IMO:flamemad:

[evalles]

Originally posted by juliekan



If the statements were anonymous, how can we be sure they were not written by FLDS women that were there? [/*]
They were given to the press by a court commisoner who's on the board that the social workers submitted their reports to.

[evalles]

Originally posted by lotty


JMO IIRC They come from a situation where...LE will not help! LE will not do the job they are charged to do! They come from two states where it is extremely difficult to get anyone to do anything. There are numerous credible articles. Go find them.

Copies are flying off the shelves? Prove it.

Ms. Jessop is in charge of a $100 million trust? I thought Bruce Wisan was...and it is no longer worth $100 million. Prove Ms. Jessop is in charge of the UEP!

Prove any of them are getting rich...show me their bank statements.

As always JMO/IMO:flamemad: [/*]

Can u prove all these children were abused and are better off with strangers ?

[evalles]

Originally posted by tirante


Can you prove the opposite?

I have never seen a more pertinacious person as you. [/*]

I could say the same about you.

So you don't have any proof that they were all abused ?

My proof is there's no proof that all 464 kids were abused or that even a significant number were.
When there is, I'll stop being so pertinacious.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by lotty


JMO IIRC They come from a situation where...LE will not help! LE will not do the job they are charged to do! They come from two states where it is extremely difficult to get anyone to do anything. There are numerous credible articles. Go find them.

Copies are flying off the shelves? Prove it.

Ms. Jessop is in charge of a $100 million trust? I thought Bruce Wisan was...and it is no longer worth $100 million. Prove Ms. Jessop is in charge of the UEP!

Prove any of them are getting rich...show me their bank statements.

As always JMO/IMO:flamemad: [/*]

I posted a link the the links thread to a website of a psychologist that had worked with a number of these women/girls who escaped their imprisonment in these compounds. It is a real eye-opener to read about the psychological damage these women/girls have indured. It takes a minimum of 3 years for these women to be able to get to a point where they can think and act independently.

You are correct, LE in Utah will not help these women. They are returned to their abusive environment pronto. The only way they get help is if they escape and go to a safe environment. Those safe environments are charitible organizations run by others that have been abused. Utah LE and politicians WILL NOT help these women.

Most of these women who write about their experiences with FLDS give a large chunk of their profits to these charitable orgs that help the women who escape.

[juliekan]

Today on Oprah will be Elissa Wall who has written a new book on her experiences in the FLDS. She will also be featured on "GMA" and "20/20" on Friday.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by juliekan
Today on Oprah will be Elissa Wall who has written a new book on her experiences in the FLDS. She will also be featured on "GMA" and "20/20" on Friday. [/*]

THANK YOU juliekan for the heads up.

I gotta tune in for that. I've been waiting to hear from Elissa since the Jeffs trial. She can shed a lot of light on what these women and children are going through inside the FLDS.

I thank God for her courage!

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


grammybear - great post, and thanks for the additional insight.

evalles - here's another source for you to ignore. grammybear is a resident of Salt Lake City, a lifelong member of the LDS, and a regular poster here. She has personally spoken with people who have left the FLDS cult, including so-called lost boys. In case you skimmed over it in either her post or my quote of her post, here it is a third time:

"Aong with this I have talked with people who have left this cult. The interesting things is that they do all tell about atrocities with this group. Even a couple of lost boys I have talked to tell me of things that go on and excuses jeffs uses to get rid of them." [/*]
I'm not ignoring it, it's certainly one side of the story.
She has talked to the accusers but not the accused.
How can you make a decision without hearing from all sides ?

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


Can u prove all these children were abused and are better off with strangers ? [/*]

No, I can not prove they are all abused and better off with strangers.

Can u prove that not even one was abused and better off with strangers?

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


I could say the same about you.

So you don't have any proof that they were all abused ?

My proof is there's no proof that all 464 kids were abused or that even a significant number were.
When there is, I'll stop being so pertinacious. [/*]

Show me your proof! I don't see it!

[mariah79]

Originally posted by evalles

I'm not ignoring it, it's certainly one side of the story.
She has talked to the accusers but not the accused.
How can you make a decision without hearing from all sides ? [/*]

How many abusers do you know of that will admit they abused the accuser?

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


I've tried to get Warren on the phone, but he's not taking my calls. :rolleyes:

So ... I'll improvise.

Here's an improvised quote from the accused: "I didn't do it." [/*]

:lol:

that's what they all say...

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles

I'm not ignoring it, it's certainly one side of the story.
She has talked to the accusers but not the accused.
How can you make a decision without hearing from all sides ? [/*]Ah - so you think after hearing and believing everything FLDS has to say, every person who says anything that puts CPS in the wrong, you still don't have enough of the other side to listen to the lost boys and real people who were in the FLDS and know the whole truth? You need more pro-FLDS propaganda before you can pay attention to what the victims say?

Or are you suggesting Granny shouldn't come here and tell the truth without breaking down the doors of her local FLDS compound to talk to the abusers and hear them lie?

[Cat2007]

Originally posted by dsmith
OK I have what some might think is a strange question

in the LDS doctrine and covenants 132
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

is it normal for the bible of any religion to name a person's first and last name or was this Joseph Smith just looking for a way to have as many wifes he wanted [/*]

I was reading this exact thing today, dsmith, in "Under the Banner of Heaven," by Jon Krakauer. He wrote that precisely to make Emma accept his promiscuity and his other wives. She didn't buy it. It is an interesting read and maddening and horrifying, too.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by grammybear
On the comment about not all of the 464 children being abused, they were emotionally being abused by the adults that live in this cult. I believe that the water torture that was done to these children when they wee ones was abuse, let alone they spanked these poor babies and then did the water torture to them. They have been raised to fear their father. How can anybody say that these children were not abused. These children have seen a lot that we have not been told of. You raise a child in this kind of enviroment and you are responsible for the abuse, so the children need to be removed for their own protection.
The fact that there are young teenage girls that have children or are pregnent does point to abuse.
Just living in this kind of enviroment is sending all kinds of mixed messages to these children that it is ok to break the laws of the land, to take a young girl into sex slavery and forced to have babies of their own sends a direct message that abuse is ok. But it is not ok. Children need to be raised in an enviroment where they are loved and cherished and be taught that it is not right to abuse others.

jmoo [/*]

ITA grammy! :beer:

[evalles]

Originally posted by grammybear
On the comment about not all of the 464 children being abused, they were emotionally being abused by the adults that live in this cult. I believe that the water torture that was done to these children when they wee ones was abuse, let alone they spanked these poor babies and then did the water torture to them. They have been raised to fear their father. How can anybody say that these children were not abused. These children have seen a lot that we have not been told of. You raise a child in this kind of enviroment and you are responsible for the abuse, so the children need to be removed for their own protection.
The fact that there are young teenage girls that have children or are pregnent does point to abuse.
Just living in this kind of enviroment is sending all kinds of mixed messages to these children that it is ok to break the laws of the land, to take a young girl into sex slavery and forced to have babies of their own sends a direct message that abuse is ok. But it is not ok. Children need to be raised in an enviroment where they are loved and cherished and be taught that it is not right to abuse others.

jmoo [/*]

Funny, the mental health professionals that actually talked to the kids,said they were not abused emotionally or physically. If they were there and you weren't, why would your opinion be more valid ?

[evalles]

Originally posted by grammybear
History has repeated itself many times with the fact that many abusers do say all along that they are not guilty when confronted with an issue such as a spouse disappearing, a dead or injured child. But in most of these cases the accused is found guilty in a court of law. What reason would all the people who have left the FLDS or the boys and men who have been kicked out have a reason to lie about what has happened to them? They have to learn in the outside world that is not FLDS. There is no way that these perps are going to admit that they have had sex with a 12-15 year old because they know what will happen to them. They know they are breaking the laws of the land and they do not care, as long as they can get away with it. Another thing is look at what Jeffs did when he was wanted by the LE and FBI. He was always in hiding until that faithful night just outside of Las Vegas when he was caught. There is no reason for a person who is not guilty to run, but a guilty man will run.
The information that has come out about this group is basically the same.

Also why did Jeffs have these couples who were going to be spiritually married have to do it in another state then their home town? Because he knew the marriages were not legaql and he was covering his own butt to make sure he did not get arrested.

I think it is very fascinating that we are seeing lots of young people with this group who are bucking the FLDS system. They are brave and I wish them all the luck in the world. I also think it is great that people who have left this cult are now trying to help these children.

Thanks for all the kind words about my last post.

jmoo [/*]

History has repeated itself many times with the fact that many abusers do say all along that they are not guilty when confronted with an issue
__________________________________________________ _
If guilty people say they're innocent, what do innocent people say ?

Or do you think that anybody that's accused is guilty ?

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
Ah - so you think after hearing and believing everything FLDS has to say, every person who says anything that puts CPS in the wrong, you still don't have enough of the other side to listen to the lost boys and real people who were in the FLDS and know the whole truth? You need more pro-FLDS propaganda before you can pay attention to what the victims say?

Or are you suggesting Granny shouldn't come here and tell the truth without breaking down the doors of her local FLDS compound to talk to the abusers and hear them lie? [/*]\

She can certainly talk about what she know and believes, it's still only one side of the story.

I think just like anywhere else, you'll find bad and good.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


I've tried to get Warren on the phone, but he's not taking my calls. :rolleyes:

So ... I'll improvise.

Here's an improvised quote from the accused: "I didn't do it." [/*]

We're not talking about Warren Jeffs, or Brent Jeffs or Flora Jessop, we're talking about 464 children.

Not everyone that's accused is guilty. Accusations are easily made.

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


We're not talking about Warren Jeffs, or Brent Jeffs or Flora Jessop, we're talking about 464 children.

Not everyone that's accused is guilty. Accusations are easily made. [/*]

Warren Jeffs, Brent Jeffs, and Flora Jessop have far more to do with this, than your personal rants about CPS in your state do.

[evalles]

Originally posted by GollyGeeWhiz


You clearly have NO experience with how abused children react, therefore YOUR opinion is utterly without merit. [/*]

I didn't claim to have any experience, and I DIDN'T GIVE AN OPINION. The opinions were those of multiple mental health professionalsthat were actually there working with the children and their mothers.
There's already a link posted for it.
You have some major reading comprehension issues.
You're post was utterly without merit.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
Funny, the mental health professionals that actually talked to the kids,said they were not abused emotionally or physically. If they were there and you weren't, why would your opinion be more valid ? [/*]First - you're talking only about some mental health professionals - the anonymous ones. Nor were they so daring as to say the children were not abused - reread their letter.

Other mental health professionals have said the children were abused.

[KatyDid]

Originally posted by litchfield29


I'm sorry, but I disagree with you completely. The FLDS is, by the very nature of the meaning, a "cult", absorbed in deeds that are not acceptable by the Church of Latter Day Saints, nor legal.

This is not a case of, "some good, some bad". There are no sides to the stories. If they were not guilty of doing things that are morally, and legally wrong, they wouldn't have had to create a separate entity; a cult, FLDS.

my opinions [/*]

You can add to that...the cowardly men would not be acting guilty by being on the run, hiding behind the skirts of their 'wives'.

The only men being paraded in the media now are YOUNG men who haven't 'earned' the right to have their 'stables' of women and girls.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
I didn't claim to have any experience, and I DIDN'T GIVE AN OPINION. The opinions were those of multiple mental health professionalsthat were actually there working with the children and their mothers.
There's already a link posted for it.
You have some major reading comprehension issues.
You're post was utterly without merit. [/*]
There is no such link. The link you did post contains statements miles short of what you claim - no surprise since even a disreputable professional would never be so stupid as to claim they knew a group of kids "were not abused". What they (or rather - what one, per the report, said - not all of them) did say is: Another wrote, "The children were sweet and well-mannered upon our arrival. They obeyed their mothers and appeared to be healthy and well-nourished. They had none of the traditional withdrawal common in abused children."Although this is also interesting considering their complaint:Dinnin said he remembers an MHMR staffer making announcements at the shelter that contained misinformation to a group of FLDS women. He asked the staffer to leave, and a Department of Public Safety trooper escorted her out.http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/635936.html

[lotty]

Originally posted by Details
First - you're talking only about some mental health professionals - the anonymous ones. Nor were they so daring as to say the children were not abused - reread their letter.

Other mental health professionals have said the children were abused. [/*]

ITA! There are few things tougher than sticking your neck out with your first and last name all over it. Anonymous is much easier.

[Details]

Originally posted by litchfield29
Thank you for that info. :beer: [/*]Happens a lot on forums - a link is described a few times as containing certain information - and after awhile everyone's accepting that as true - but when you look at the link - it doesn't contain that info at all.

[evalles]

Originally posted by litchfield29


You must provide a link if you are going to make statements as fact. You know the TOS. BTW, I have listened to many mental health professionals for weeks who have said exactly the opposite.

While I respect your right to believe what you want, to be a member of anything you wish, I do think it's a little disingenuous of you to come here and post the things you do without telling us to which group you belong. I think I know.

my opinions [/*]

I already posted the link but here it is again.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
I already posted the link but here it is again.


<big blank space> [/*]I know it's a typo - but this is wonderfully ironic.

[evalles]

Originally posted by litchfield29


You must provide a link if you are going to make statements as fact. You know the TOS. BTW, I have listened to many mental health professionals for weeks who have said exactly the opposite.

While I respect your right to believe what you want, to be a member of anything you wish, I do think it's a little disingenuous of you to come here and post the things you do without telling us to which group you belong. I think I know.

my opinions [/*]

I already posted the link but here it is again.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/635936.html
Where are the links to the many mental health professionals that say the opposite ?
Make sure they are mental health professionals that have been with these children please. Not ones that haven't had any contact with these children.

I didn't know everyone on these boards was a member of a group. It's a little disingenuos to post what you did, without announcing your own group affiliation.

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


Funny, the mental health professionals that actually talked to the kids,said they were not abused emotionally or physically. If they were there and you weren't, why would your opinion be more valid ? [/*]

JMO/IMO A little advice...don't go there. Respect for peoples personal experience and wisdom, goes a long way when it is more than our own on the FLDS.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by Details
I know it's a typo - but this is wonderfully ironic. [/*]

:eek:

[evalles]

Originally posted by lotty


No, I can not prove they are all abused and better off with strangers.

Can u prove that not even one was abused and better off with strangers? [/*]

If one were abused, one should have been removed. Do you really think 400 children should be removed from their parents, if only , say 50 were abused. The 350 that weren't abused, are now being abused by the system that's supposed to protect it. Don't say it's not abusive to take a child that has not been abused from his parents and place him with total strangers.

[evalles]

Originally posted by Details
I know it's a typo - but this is wonderfully ironic. [/*]

You're easily amused.

[Details]

Originally posted by evalles
I already posted the link but here it is again.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/story/635936.html
Where are the links to the many mental health professionals that say the opposite ?
Make sure they are mental health professionals that have been with these children please. Not ones that haven't had any contact with these children.

I didn't know everyone on these boards was a member of a group. It's a little disingenuos to post what you did, without announcing your own group affiliation. [/*]And I already posted to show that your link does not say what you claim it does. There is no link to mental health professionals - anyonymous or named and under oath - willing to say the children are not abused. In fact, the quote closest to saying anything about the children not appearing to have one of the common symptoms of abused children was only from one anonymous mental health professional (singular - NOT the entire group).

[lotty]

Originally posted by evalles


If one were abused, one should have been removed. Do you really think 400 children should be removed from their parents, if only , say 50 were abused. The 350 that weren't abused, are now being abused by the system that's supposed to protect it. Don't say it's not abusive to take a child that has not been abused from his parents and place him with total strangers. [/*]

1.) Please do not tell me what to say.
2.) They all reside at one address. Therefore one address was searched.
3.) When signs of abuse are evident (very young girls obviously pregnant) would be a sign of sexual abuse. Sexual abuse in my mind says get every child out.

And please don't tell me again that you haven't seen it. You weren't there.

As always JMO/IMO

[juliekan]

Lotty, have you noticed that you can only post, without quote at the bottom of the page...all other spots are "hit" quote? What's with the format change?

[walton]

http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238520

"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental "The floor was literally slick with tears..."

Here are links to letters written by staff members from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, which provided assistance to FLDS women and children in San Angelo shelters in April. They are critical of conditions in the shelters and how child welfare workers treated the women and children.



The links to the letters are at the link above. Interesting.

[lotty]

Originally posted by juliekan
Lotty, have you noticed that you can only post, without quote at the bottom of the page...all other spots are "hit" quote? What's with the format change? [/*]
What, run that by me again, or pm me. It's been a long day, not sure I understand.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by walton
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_9238520

"Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental "The floor was literally slick with tears..."

Here are links to letters written by staff members from the Hill Country Community Mental Health-Mental Retardation Center, which provided assistance to FLDS women and children in San Angelo shelters in April. They are critical of conditions in the shelters and how child welfare workers treated the women and children.



The links to the letters are at the link above. Interesting. [/*]

Haven't read it yet but sounds verrry interesting...going home shortly to a small town by Abilene, will see my cousin's husband who is a retired AD/ judge from San Angelo. My first question would be what is up with the MHMR? Any questions you would want me to ask him? Also what's up with the format change, no just posting on the screen, unless you're at the bottom, just response after hitting quote?
Sorry will read your info now, as it probably will enlighten me.

[juliekan]

Originally posted by lotty

What, run that by me again, or pm me. It's been a long day, not sure I understand. [/*]

You can't just hit POST anymore, it's only at the bottom of the page? Must hit quote to post anything?

[Details]

The stories are really something. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0512/20080512_042152_FLDS_01.pdfAmazingly, none of the other mothers acknowledged her or came to comfort her. (My interpretation is that Audrey has been trained not to feel her true feelings, and tha the other women were afraid to be seen as associating with someone whose children may have revealed secrets.).....

CPS had as their primary focus the sexual abuse that was alleged, rather than the emotional abuse I felt they were creating."Sexual abuse wasn't merely alleged - the FLDS records document it. And I'd put sexual abuse as more important than the emotional upset of a little time in an auditorium and with a foster family.

[lotty]

Julie
I hadn't noticed. There are several changes going on...that's what I get for being in and out, out more than in.:punch:

[juliekan]

OK we were at the bottom of the page...so I got to hit post to put this up for you Lotty...first the links page disappeared and them the "quotes, pm, " etc changed configuration twice. Sorry, just getting freaked out watching it. They're just playing with me :tongue: and no one else noticed! OK sorry OT . Gotta go back and read now...thanks everyone for your great posts...in advance.

[walton]

Originally posted by juliekan


Haven't read it yet but sounds verrry interesting...going home shortly to a small town by Abilene, will see my cousin's husband who is a retired AD/ judge from San Angelo. My first question would be what is up with the MHMR? Any questions you would want me to ask him? Also what's up with the format change, no just posting on the screen, unless you're at the bottom, just response after hitting quote?
Sorry will read your info now, as it probably will enlighten me. [/*]

Cool. First off tell him Walton says thank you!

And then tell him the story about Judge Steven F. Conn giving that one guy a whopping 45 days for having sex with his 16 year old stepdaughter while still married to her mother. He probably won't wanna tell the whole world what he thinks but he will tell you. And that would be good enough for me.

The only thing that I can think of with the MHMR is that there were a group of people that have never ever in their mind had to deal with these types of situations.

Mind control, mental abuse, brainwashing is a whole different type than most are accustomed. They better get a grip as they just busted another cult in Texas and it ain't preatty.

IMO they are unprofessional and lack the training needed to deal with these types of problems. They should have had a group from the Rick Ross institute there to watch the watchers. jmo

Nope, don't know nothing about the format change. Can't hear worth a darn and the eyes are not any better.

[Details]

This one seems very biased and predisposed to buy into whatever she was told - how do you know, after a few days, that an entire culture is completely nonviolent? And how do they expect CPS to determine this and change policies for different people based on - what - nothing? Her feeling?

She complains about chicken pox too - I remember when that accusation came out - CPS caused a chicken pox epidemic was the implication - in spite of the fact that from the incubation time of chicken pox, the children had gotten exposed to it well before CPS ever visited the compound. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0512/20080512_042242_FLDS_02.pdf

And then there's her lie:Most (mothers) went to shelters because they were told they would be able to see their children if they did not return to the ranch. This, of course, was another lie.Nice story - very emotionally grabbing - too bad it isn't true. Most of the mothers went back to the ranch. And they're allowed to see their children. It is quite interesting that this story nearly duplicates the story told by an FLDS mother - as if this worker is just repeating what she's told, not what she actually saw. The truth: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=4646965&page=1Nearly all the 139 women from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, who volunteered to accompany the group's children taken by authorities, left police custody late today and headed back to the polygamist sect's rural Texas compound.

[lotty]

<respectfully snipped>
Originally posted by walton


The only thing that I can think of with the MHMR is that there were a group of people that have never ever in their mind had to deal with these types of situations.

Mind control, mental abuse, brainwashing is a whole different type than most are accustomed. They better get a grip as they just busted another cult in Texas and it ain't preatty.

IMO they are unprofessional and lack the training needed to deal with these types of problems. They should have had a group from the Rick Ross institute there to watch the watchers. jmo

Nope, don't know nothing about the format change. Can't hear worth a darn and the eyes are not any better. [/*]

Yep, need real experts that understand the dealings of cults...so important, you are absolutely correct. Lots of training and fast by qualified professionals to anyone working with CPS.

LOL, the format it will get your attention as soon as you see it! Totally different.

[Details]

This one is one of the most upset. She seems to completely not get it. Yes, if you try to interfere, stop the investigation, prevent CPS from doing what it needs to do, yes indeed, that will get you in trouble. And yes, a doctors appointment and other things will happen without the parents there to pressure kids to lie.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2008/0512/20080512_043310_FLDS_06.pdf

I think what they really did not get is that this was a whole different situation than they're used to - it says MH was used usually for disaster situations - not something where an investigation is going on, not something with abused children.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by evalles


If one were abused, one should have been removed. Do you really think 400 children should be removed from their parents, if only , say 50 were abused. The 350 that weren't abused, are now being abused by the system that's supposed to protect it. Don't say it's not abusive to take a child that has not been abused from his parents and place him with total strangers. [/*]

These are not individual people living in individual houses. This is a cult; a mindset; commune lifestyle. They are of like mind; like beliefs; like practices. If it happened to one child, it happened to all of them at one time, or will in the future.

So yes, all the children should be removed from their parents who practice pedophilia, who were likely victims of it themselves, and who've known no other lifestyle. If it isn't stopped now, another generation of mass pedophiles will emerge under the guise of religion.

IMO

[Details]

I just finished all of them. Sounds to me like these people came in with the idea of being support and a listening ear, and a help for the mothers and children. Problem is - this isn't a disaster - this is an investigation. And helping out with communication is fine - but they seem to not accept that there is an investigation going on - that CPS needs to monitor what the mothers are telling the children, cannot just give them cell phones, and does indeed need to perform medical exams.

They seemed shocked that children were upset at being separated from mothers and CPS didn't fix it. There is no fixing that. It's like ripping off a bandaid - you do it as quickly as possible - there's no way you can soothe and comfort the child. The only option that helps at all is if the mother lets the child know it is OK - and even then, it isn't.

[Details]

It is not just the mindset - it is that all of the children belong to Jeffs and the priesthood. The parents can be Mother Theresa or Hitler - either way, they don't control whether or not the children are abused.

[walton]

Keeping in mind Ervil LeBaron and his crew. ( He issued death threats from his prison cell and many of them were carried out.)

Blood Atonement was/is a threat carried from the Joseph Smith times.

Asking that no one had knives was not an unusal request. jmo