Which FLDS Rumors do you believe

daisy.faithfull · Aug 8, 2011

kantoo said:
from what i have read, they don't just take in people. you have to be born of the group that is there, to keep the bloodline pure (and the inbreeding and all that involves). jmo

I think that Kimberly is correct. I don't think that it is very common, and they do not recruit like the LDS, if they recruit at all because they don't have normal contact with the outside world that I know of.

It seems like they would be really distrustful of strangers, but since they believe they are called or chosen by God it makes sense that they would welcome those who are similarly inspired.

I think their are other smaller sects of FLDS outside of the major compounds that we see in the media. I think that new members can join those communities or even start their own. I don't know if we know which criminal practices occur in them.

wenwe4 · Aug 8, 2011

kantoo said:
from what i have read, they don't just take in people. you have to be born of the group that is there, to keep the bloodline pure (and the inbreeding and all that involves). jmo

daisy.faithfull said:
I think that Kimberly is correct. I don't think that it is very common, and they do not recruit like the LDS, if they recruit at all because they don't have normal contact with the outside world that I know of.

It seems like they would be really distrustful of strangers, but since they believe they are called or chosen by God it makes sense that they would welcome those who are similarly inspired.

I think their are other smaller sects of FLDS outside of the major compounds that we see in the media. I think that new members can join those communities or even start their own. I don't know if we know which criminal practices occur in them.

There are numerous "refuges" of the FLDS members in various cities and countries in which they "trade" child brides. Bountiful, Canada; Hilldale area of AZ and UT; Sandy, UT; Mexico and South America; Nevada; Colorado, some in New Mexico and Texas as well. The young women and children are packed into white vans and driven across State and Country boundaries and borders. The local jurisdictions (even Border control) has known about this practice and are powerless to intervene (as previously reported). I would imagine that they now must hold Passports for each person on those vans if they attempt to cross into Mexico or Canada, but I would bet the farm that those children and young people have never had access to their own passports. They are held close to the vest by those in power over them. (IMO)

Since the Tx raids and CPS removal of over 400 children....it has been said that FLDS have spintered off even more into smaller communities, in an effort to reduce the number of children (in any one area) who could be taken by Law Enforcement. I believe Warren Jeffs confused the former FLDS system of keeping track of familial (inbreeding) for lack of a better word. When WSJ broke up families and sent children to live with different Fathers and sometimes gave children to different Mothers and Fathers and cities to live and houses to live in......wives and children do not question their Father, the Prophet, the church - lest they would be so audacious to question God!

CanManEh · Aug 9, 2011

Im new here so i will appolagise now if this has been asked before . Actually It's more of a question really. Im just wondering because i like watching HBO the tv series like true blood and dexter but there is or was one and i liked it too called Big Love So i guess what iam wondering is how much of that show is simmiliar . Like i know they never did nothing like what this creep jeffs did but yet they wanted to make that life legal in what ways does it differ on that series then what we r hearing about now . or were they the big love series were they trying to get out of the profitt and the compound kinda way of living and wanted to live as poligomists . like i said i dont know much about this stuff and i know this off topic a bit i was just hoping someone could tell me the difference . I allways watched that show and ya they lived different but it seemed like they only wanted do do the right thing so i thought they were good people..am i wrong about that.. sorry for the rambling..

CathyinTexas · Aug 10, 2011

CanManEh said:
Im new here so i will appolagise now if this has been asked before . Actually It's more of a question really. Im just wondering because i like watching HBO the tv series like true blood and dexter but there is or was one and i liked it too called Big Love So i guess what iam wondering is how much of that show is simmiliar . Like i know they never did nothing like what this creep jeffs did but yet they wanted to make that life legal in what ways does it differ on that series then what we r hearing about now . or were they the big love series were they trying to get out of the profitt and the compound kinda way of living and wanted to live as poligomists . like i said i dont know much about this stuff and i know this off topic a bit i was just hoping someone could tell me the difference . I allways watched that show and ya they lived different but it seemed like they only wanted do do the right thing so i thought they were good people..am i wrong about that.. sorry for the rambling..

Though I don't watch either Big Love or Sister Wives, I did look into both. Big Love is totally fictional, and Sister Wives is a reality show of a Polygamous family. I read that the real poly family is not with FLDS. There are many groups or sects of polygamists.

CathyR · Aug 12, 2011

Dating back to the time of Brigham Young and the founding of the Mormon church. Blood Atonement was practiced. I have seen two movies (not documentaries) but not totally false either about this practice. Tom Berenger was in one and he was one of the selected "death squad". The movie was called Avenging Angel.
A massacre of travelors was blamed on Indians but was actually committed at the behest of Brigham Young in the other. While the movie is not completly factual it is based on incidents that did occur at the time Brigham Young was in charge of the church.

2 men murdered in my time by FLDS groups are Rulon C. Allred and Ervil LeBaron. I read about those murders in a book I found in the True Crime area at my public library. The FLDS group that is supposed to have done this had their enclave in Mexico. They selected land that is not suitable for farming or the orchards they planted so they did not fair well with being self sufficient. Also the obvious mental illness of the leader became apparent and the sect was small. It seems the larger the sect the harder it is to get away from it and the fear of speaking out against it is greater.

When any religious group excludes the general public from attending their services IMO they are a cult.

A woman I know had a son who married a Morman woman. They got married in the big church in Salt Lake City. He converted. His own mother was not allowed to attend the marriage services. She waited outside on the church steps.

If you are a "religion" then a representative ( not of your faith) from the federal government should be allowed to attend without any notice any type of worship services your church offers. If not then you are hiding something, it is NOT a privacy issue. When it comes to claiming federal exemption from taxes then any church must allow non faith members to attend any service they choose. Other wise you lose your exemption. They should also not be able to exclude the general public from attending services. I may want to convert to their faith but would not do so if not allowed to see fully what the church does and says in their services. If I cannot put my faith in them to allow this then I can not trust them with teaching me their faith and expecting me to adhere to their values and tenets of the church.

Careful monitoring of church activities is not an invasion of privacy. The representative of the government must remain silent during the services and may not cause a scene or disturb the services. If that representative witnesses the breaking of any federal statutes, polygamy, blood atonement, sex with children, civil rights etc. any of the numerous crimes associated with the FLDS and old style Morman beliefs then that church loses it's tax exemption and charges will be filed against any known offenders. This should occur after a report is given by the represenitive, an investigation into the church and good verifiable proof.

What should be private in a church is it's individual meetings with members such as counseling sessions, directors meetings any of the services they do not allow all church members to openly gather for the purpose of worship.

Lets say that a church marriage ceremony or general beliefs promoted in the church, requires a man or woman to give up rights that are in the constitution such as voting, their freedom of speech, deny rights to others such as your are required to hate all people of a different race then it is violation of the constitution and of civil rights and is not a church.

It does not mean the federal government has the right to come into your home at any time as your home is not a church unless you designate it to be so and claim exemption from federal taxes. Privacy is in the home not the church.

I don't have anything against Mormon's most I have known are nice folks but they don't discuss a lot about their religion they have been oredered not to. It is drilled into their heads at an early age.

Laws should be passed to prevent cults from just the kind of crimes being committed by a so called "religions", a tax exempt organization.

Otherwise we should all form a church based on "removing the influence of evil" from the individuals we deem unsuitable to society and do it behind the closed doors of our so called church a now tax exempt organization. Our first sermon will be on Casey Anthony. I bet Nancy Grace would attend "services". If someone actually kills Casey Anthony we would all say they just took things too far and that is not our collective belief even though we incited that person to do just that.

While freedom of religion is a guaranteed right we need to examine what is determined to be a church.

If a church does not agree with the law they have many avenues of a PEACEFUL manner in which to get those laws changed. Otherwise they can just leave our country as requiring someone to break the law, promoting law breaking, inciting to violence or violating the civil rights of others is does not make a church. The worst a church should be able to do if you don't believe like they do is shun you and ask you to no longer attend their church. If an Islamic woman does not want to wear the Berka she has the right to refuse but if orders are given to kill or punish her there is the crime.

Look at the recent crimes where children were denied medical care and died or suffered lifelong disabilities from lack of medical care. Look at the crimes committed by the FLDS, look at how Jim Jones was able to get members to commit mass suicide and church members committed murder just prior to the suicides. Heaven's Gate committed mass suicide but did not murder anyone before hand or prevent any who wanted to leave not to do so.

There is a big difference between cults and churches. Excluding others of your faith from your place of worship because you fear their judgment is a good indication they are a cult and not a religion.

The law would have to well written and I'm sure would need a lot of fine tuning and input from psycologist as to how these charismatic leaders are able to get people to commit crimes under the name and exemption of "the church".

It is long overdue and a much needed law. We may not need a law but a change in the tax code which is much easier to get.

A church should not be allowed to exist if they intend to violate the law and encourage others to do the same. They can openly protest abotion clinics and ask members to not use abortion Dr.'s for any services they provide outside of abortions. They must adher to any and all laws in regards to their organized protests. This is already being enforced. Those who choose to bomb clinics and kill doctors are being prosecuted. This is how the law works and regardless of their view point and yours if you disagree with the churches stance, they are not operating under a veil of secrecy and encouraging law breaking actions. They are obtaining permits when required etc.

I fear not taking on any organization that has decided to deny the rights of this country to any of it's members. Freedom isn't free and too many people have died in the past and will die in the future defending those rights. It is time we define what is right and wrong and be prepared to take the backlash if any form of any and all who chose to ignore the law, think their religion gives them the right without first taking it to the courts to decide ( like Indians who use peyote in religous ceremonies did). The Indians won the right and careful monitering and structure is used and required for it's legal use.
There are almost always exceptions and each individual church can address those issues in court if they find the law to be repressing their rights to worship as their religion requires.

I may not have all the answers here but smarter and legal minded individuals should do something about this slap in the face of freedom and the rights we have as a group and as individuals we are supposed to have in America.

IMO you can't be a church if you deny any of them to your members.

daisy.faithfull · Aug 12, 2011

wenwe4 said:
There are numerous "refuges" of the FLDS members in various cities and countries in which they "trade" child brides. Bountiful, Canada; Hilldale area of AZ and UT; Sandy, UT; Mexico and South America; Nevada; Colorado, some in New Mexico and Texas as well. The young women and children are packed into white vans and driven across State and Country boundaries and borders. The local jurisdictions (even Border control) has known about this practice and are powerless to intervene (as previously reported). I would imagine that they now must hold Passports for each person on those vans if they attempt to cross into Mexico or Canada, but I would bet the farm that those children and young people have never had access to their own passports. They are held close to the vest by those in power over them. (IMO)

Since the Tx raids and CPS removal of over 400 children....it has been said that FLDS have spintered off even more into smaller communities, in an effort to reduce the number of children (in any one area) who could be taken by Law Enforcement. I believe Warren Jeffs confused the former FLDS system of keeping track of familial (inbreeding) for lack of a better word. When WSJ broke up families and sent children to live with different Fathers and sometimes gave children to different Mothers and Fathers and cities to live and houses to live in......wives and children do not question their Father, the Prophet, the church - lest they would be so audacious to question God!

I don't understand why they can't be charged with human trafficking, but I suppose that the children are not technically forced to do these things and the parents I'm sure give their consent.

It is difficult for me to understand the whole "our hands are tied" thing. Here in AZ there are things that could've and should've been investigated but it doesn't happen because their hands are tied. Politicians have a history of being intimidated and looking the other way. So when I hear that LE's hands are tied what it really means is they are looking the other way.

As far as the inbreeding is concerned, my mom worked for a pediatrician ('00 to '05 that specialized in difficult pregnancies. Many of the mothers were giving birth to babies with severe birth defects over and over because of course they don't believe in birth control. Of course all of the medical care was free since as "single" mothers they were given the state funded insurance. Those benefits have been cut back, and I was hopeful that we wouldn't be footing the bill for these people. Unfortunatly single mothers will still receive both the insurance and food stamp benefits.

wenwe4 · Aug 12, 2011

daisy.faithfull said:
I don't understand why they can't be charged with human trafficking, but I suppose that the children are not technically forced to do these things and the parents I'm sure give their consent.

It is difficult for me to understand the whole "our hands are tied" thing. Here in AZ there are things that could've and should've been investigated but it doesn't happen because their hands are tied. Politicians have a history of being intimidated and looking the other way. So when I hear that LE's hands are tied what it really means is they are looking the other way.

As far as the inbreeding is concerned, my mom worked for a pediatrician ('00 to '05 that specialized in difficult pregnancies. Many of the mothers were giving birth to babies with severe birth defects over and over because of course they don't believe in birth control. Of course all of the medical care was free since as "single" mothers they were given the state funded insurance. Those benefits have been cut back, and I was hopeful that we wouldn't be footing the bill for these people. Unfortunatly single mothers will still receive both the insurance and food stamp benefits.

I am not sure I agree with every time that LE hands are tied - they are looking the other way, as the Border Patrol cannot arrest a van load of children and women for just crossing the border. We cannot arrest or detain people unless there is a reasonable cause to do so and they do not have credible evidence that that car load of children will be sexually abused or sold into marriage at the time.

Regarding the single mother and state funded medical issues . . . there has been such reform in welfare laws in the past 15 years that no single mother can collect welfare (not entirely sure about medical benefits) without naming the father of the child or establishing paternity - for the specific purpose of pursuing child support. I am grateful that we do have appropriate access to medical care and foodstamps for the children. Welfare monies vary per state in amounts but in my state it is $340 per month for one child and $440 for 2 kids. I don't know anyone who can afford rent, heat, electricity, food, hygiene, clothing, etc on that amount of money per month, while raising two kids. Some states have maxed out the amounts that any one family can receive no matter how many children they have. There are now 3 to 5 year lifetime maximum's that a single woman is allowed to collect welfare benefits. So the women having 17 children in these communities would still be required to work, look for work, and/or improve their education and job skills to be able to obtain employment within a very short period of time. I think the State I live in allows 3 months after the birth of a child for a parent to remain at home and not have to engage in WorkFirst requirements.

Regarding inbreeding . . . the best study ever done (that I am aware of) is one medical study on an Amish community in the Northeast. The only significant disability found consistently that was attributed to "in-breeding" was near - sightedness. Not to say that there were not birth defects and birth related injuries to some of these children in the FLDS society - but unless there is a clear genetic disorder (ie: Muscular Dystrophy), I would venture to guess there were more problems related to the sheer number of children they have had, lack of access to appropriate medical care, and the ages of the mother's when they are delivering their children (ie: very young or very old).

Glow · Aug 13, 2011

CathyR said:
Dating back to the time of Brigham Young and the founding of the Mormon church. Blood Atonement was practiced. I have seen two movies (not documentaries) but not totally false either about this practice. Tom Berenger was in one and he was one of the selected "death squad". The movie was called Avenging Angel.
A massacre of travelors was blamed on Indians but was actually committed at the behest of Brigham Young in the other. While the movie is not completly factual it is based on incidents that did occur at the time Brigham Young was in charge of the church.

2 men murdered in my time by FLDS groups are Rulon C. Allred and Ervil LeBaron. I read about those murders in a book I found in the True Crime area at my public library. The FLDS group that is supposed to have done this had their enclave in Mexico. They selected land that is not suitable for farming or the orchards they planted so they did not fair well with being self sufficient. Also the obvious mental illness of the leader became apparent and the sect was small. It seems the larger the sect the harder it is to get away from it and the fear of speaking out against it is greater.

When any religious group excludes the general public from attending their services IMO they are a cult.

A woman I know had a son who married a Morman woman. They got married in the big church in Salt Lake City. He converted. His own mother was not allowed to attend the marriage services. She waited outside on the church steps.

If you are a "religion" then a representative ( not of your faith) from the federal government should be allowed to attend without any notice any type of worship services your church offers. If not then you are hiding something, it is NOT a privacy issue. When it comes to claiming federal exemption from taxes then any church must allow non faith members to attend any service they choose. Other wise you lose your exemption. They should also not be able to exclude the general public from attending services. I may want to convert to their faith but would not do so if not allowed to see fully what the church does and says in their services. If I cannot put my faith in them to allow this then I can not trust them with teaching me their faith and expecting me to adhere to their values and tenets of the church.

Careful monitoring of church activities is not an invasion of privacy. The representative of the government must remain silent during the services and may not cause a scene or disturb the services. If that representative witnesses the breaking of any federal statutes, polygamy, blood atonement, sex with children, civil rights etc. any of the numerous crimes associated with the FLDS and old style Morman beliefs then that church loses it's tax exemption and charges will be filed against any known offenders. This should occur after a report is given by the represenitive, an investigation into the church and good verifiable proof.

What should be private in a church is it's individual meetings with members such as counseling sessions, directors meetings any of the services they do not allow all church members to openly gather for the purpose of worship.

Lets say that a church marriage ceremony or general beliefs promoted in the church, requires a man or woman to give up rights that are in the constitution such as voting, their freedom of speech, deny rights to others such as your are required to hate all people of a different race then it is violation of the constitution and of civil rights and is not a church.

It does not mean the federal government has the right to come into your home at any time as your home is not a church unless you designate it to be so and claim exemption from federal taxes. Privacy is in the home not the church.

I don't have anything against Mormon's most I have known are nice folks but they don't discuss a lot about their religion they have been oredered not to. It is drilled into their heads at an early age.

Laws should be passed to prevent cults from just the kind of crimes being committed by a so called "religions", a tax exempt organization.

Otherwise we should all form a church based on "removing the influence of evil" from the individuals we deem unsuitable to society and do it behind the closed doors of our so called church a now tax exempt organization. Our first sermon will be on Casey Anthony. I bet Nancy Grace would attend "services". If someone actually kills Casey Anthony we would all say they just took things too far and that is not our collective belief even though we incited that person to do just that.

While freedom of religion is a guaranteed right we need to examine what is determined to be a church.

If a church does not agree with the law they have many avenues of a PEACEFUL manner in which to get those laws changed. Otherwise they can just leave our country as requiring someone to break the law, promoting law breaking, inciting to violence or violating the civil rights of others is does not make a church. The worst a church should be able to do if you don't believe like they do is shun you and ask you to no longer attend their church. If an Islamic woman does not want to wear the Berka she has the right to refuse but if orders are given to kill or punish her there is the crime.

Look at the recent crimes where children were denied medical care and died or suffered lifelong disabilities from lack of medical care. Look at the crimes committed by the FLDS, look at how Jim Jones was able to get members to commit mass suicide and church members committed murder just prior to the suicides. Heaven's Gate committed mass suicide but did not murder anyone before hand or prevent any who wanted to leave not to do so.

There is a big difference between cults and churches. Excluding others of your faith from your place of worship because you fear their judgment is a good indication they are a cult and not a religion.

The law would have to well written and I'm sure would need a lot of fine tuning and input from psycologist as to how these charismatic leaders are able to get people to commit crimes under the name and exemption of "the church".

It is long overdue and a much needed law. We may not need a law but a change in the tax code which is much easier to get.

A church should not be allowed to exist if they intend to violate the law and encourage others to do the same. They can openly protest abotion clinics and ask members to not use abortion Dr.'s for any services they provide outside of abortions. They must adher to any and all laws in regards to their organized protests. This is already being enforced. Those who choose to bomb clinics and kill doctors are being prosecuted. This is how the law works and regardless of their view point and yours if you disagree with the churches stance, they are not operating under a veil of secrecy and encouraging law breaking actions. They are obtaining permits when required etc.

I fear not taking on any organization that has decided to deny the rights of this country to any of it's members. Freedom isn't free and too many people have died in the past and will die in the future defending those rights. It is time we define what is right and wrong and be prepared to take the backlash if any form of any and all who chose to ignore the law, think their religion gives them the right without first taking it to the courts to decide ( like Indians who use peyote in religous ceremonies did). The Indians won the right and careful monitering and structure is used and required for it's legal use.
There are almost always exceptions and each individual church can address those issues in court if they find the law to be repressing their rights to worship as their religion requires.

I may not have all the answers here but smarter and legal minded individuals should do something about this slap in the face of freedom and the rights we have as a group and as individuals we are supposed to have in America.

IMO you can't be a church if you deny any of them to your members.

This was a great and well thought out post!

The only problem is that there are 2 (just 2) entities that have controlled human behavior from the beginning of time.

Religion and Government.

Your post postulates that we give government the upper hand.

What kind of scenarios does that conjure up?

CathyR · Aug 13, 2011

Define the difference between a cult and a church and religion still has an equal voice and cults are not tax exempt entities.

We can't outlaw them, it is the right of an individual to belong to a cult if they so desire. We can however define the difference and remove their tax exempt status. This is not a government interference as Congress shall not make any laws in regards to religion. It is a revision of the tax code to define what makes a church or non profit organization that enjoys tax exempt status.

Example: A cult does not allow for it's members to own anything. Anything they own or possess is required by the cult leaders to be turned over for the good of the cult.
A cult uses the same tactics seen in domestic violence. Isolate the members from other members of society and even close relationships as those with parents, siblings and other relatives must be given up in order to a member.
A cult will justify breaking the law as their right and they are for whatever reason they make the members believe they are above the law or exempt from the law.
A cult will use any means possible to punish members for questioning their authority or balking at any of it's rules.
A cult operates in secret and asks it's members to not discuss their views, values and tenets with anyone outside of the cult.
A cult has closed services that do not allow for outside examination unless the people attending services have been fully indoctrinated.
A cult will devise ways to strip away a person's ability to make their own decisions and asks it's members to give up their individuality, civil rights, and constitutionally mandated rights.

A church does not do any of the above.

borndem · Aug 13, 2011

Originally Posted by Kimberlyd125 [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6991200#post6991200"]

[/ame]
Yep!!!!

I disagree. I think it is THAT simple.
-------------------------------------------

[B said:
daisy.faithfull[/B];6991652]I was born and raised here in AZ and as long as it has taken for justice to hopefully be served I can see how someone might want to believe that it is not as horrifying as it is, but it is.

From Carolyn Jessop's Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Jessop#April_2008_YFZ_Ranch_raid
Jessop arrived on-site Sunday, April 6, in hopes of reuniting two of her daughters with their half-siblings. She stated her opinion that the action in Texas was unlike the 1953 Short Creek raid in Arizona.[15] On April 8 she was interviewed by the NBC Today Show regarding the event, and described life at a FLDS community.[16] Jessop had also been in Texas the prior month at a speaking engagement, where she said, "n Eldorado, the crimes went to a whole new level. They thought they could get away with more" but "Texas is not going to be a state that's as tolerant of these crimes as Arizona and Utah have been."[17]

Yes, I agree with both Kimberly and Daisy -- let me state for the record, that I am not LDS or FLDS -- I read Jessop's autobiography, Escape, and she seemed intelligent, certainly resilient, honest, and down-to-earth. She wrote about her life growing up in a FLDS family -- her parents were very distant and her mother was frustrated and consequently, abusive to the children. When Carolyn was 18, she was forced into marriage with a fairly high-ranking FLDS man 32 yrs her senior with 3 wives already and 30+ children. Her husband gained 2 more wives after his marriage to Carolyn. There is definitely a pecking order with the sister-wives as well, and Carolyn was not the Alpha Wife...

Somehow she was able to escape one night with her 8 children, etc., etc. A fascinating read.

IMHO only, I think it's a horrid cult, where women are possessions with no voice whatsoever; children are worse off -- especially the girls; and Lost Boys are treated as freaks of nature and are shunned and turned outside the "gates" of the community with nothing but the old-fashioned used clothes on their backs.

It's somehow comforting to know that Warren Jeffs:chicken: is in prison now and that's a good thing. But I'm sure a new head will take over who may not be any better and possibly worse. Again, JMHO.

A horror, IMO.

Cracka*Jaxx · Aug 13, 2011

daisy.faithfull said:
I don't understand why they can't be charged with human trafficking, but I suppose that the children are not technically forced to do these things and the parents I'm sure give their consent.

I'm sure they can be charged with human trafficking and a myriad of other offenses. The problem for LE is obtaining actual evidence of a crime. People can't be arrested just because we assume they are committing a crime. Also, witnesses are needed and, as we all know, FLDS members refuse to come forward.

Regarding parents giving consent, a parent cannot give consent if the consent means breaking the law. They can't consent to allowing their child to be raped, for example. And, yes, the children are being forced because by law under age children cannot give consent.

borndem · Aug 13, 2011

daisy.faithfull said:
I don't understand why they can't be charged with human trafficking, but I suppose that the children are not technically forced to do these things and the parents I'm sure give their consent.

It is difficult for me to understand the whole "our hands are tied" thing. Here in AZ there are things that could've and should've been investigated but it doesn't happen because their hands are tied. Politicians have a history of being intimidated and looking the other way. So when I hear that LE's hands are tied what it really means is they are looking the other way.

As far as the inbreeding is concerned, my mom worked for a pediatrician ('00 to '05 that specialized in difficult pregnancies. Many of the mothers were giving birth to babies with severe birth defects over and over because of course they don't believe in birth control. Of course all of the medical care was free since as "single" mothers they were given the state funded insurance. Those benefits have been cut back, and I was hopeful that we wouldn't be footing the bill for these people. Unfortunatly single mothers will still receive both the insurance and food stamp benefits.

BBM
Some good thoughts, daisy.faithfull -

On the first BBM sentence in your post, Carolyn Jessop, on the night before she was to be "married," was initially told by her parents that she would be getting married to Jessop the next day. As she explained in her book, Escape, on that night, she had to sleep in her mother's bed with her mother. She wrote that this sleeping arrangement was a regular custom for FLDS brides-to-be. She further said it was mainly because the parents and the "groom" did not want the "bride" to run away after receiving the news. (Can you imagine?) So indeed, she was quietly and privately "married" the next day. She was 18 y/o, so this could not be prosecuted as trafficking. But I think you raise a good point because not every "bride" is of legal age. And with marriages of girls not of legal age, if the "groom" is already married, it is indeed trafficking. Period. IMO....

Re the other two BBM sentences: We have heard & heard & heard in news accounts and other reliable sources about these poor FLDS "wives" who follow the 1st (and ONLY) legal wife -- how they live in a state of poverty or near-poverty, and are given medical services and food stamps (and probably WIC as well) free of charge, as you said, because the "wives" have no jobs and no source of income. I hope that these poor "wives" are the exception and not the rule, but I have no idea and I'm skeptical.)

First of all, this is a travesty against the women & probably many children, that they should have to live that way -- and using the gov't and LEO's to go after these deadbeat dads would never do for many reasons... And of course it's unfair to all the rest of "us" who pay our taxes year after year. (I am a flaming liberal, but there it is.) No wonder the illegal wives compete like sprinters to gain favor with the husband. Carolyn Jessop said that although she hated having sex with that man, she did so to gain favor. Little wonder -- that's all the currency she had.

Anyway, I've had my rant. What CAN be done if, as you say -- and I'm certainly not disagreeing with anything you posted -- their "hands are tied"? Grrrrrrr. :banghead: ..... :maddening:...... :waitasec: .... :curses:

End of rant. :rant:

wilco · Aug 13, 2011

LDS, like some other male dominated "religious cults," is nothing more than a way for horny older guys to have multiple sexual partners. It is amazing to me that anyone takes any part of Mormonism seriously. Modern Mormonism attempts to shed it's history of being founded and operated by horny, manipulative older men who fabricated a "religion" to get to have sex with more women.

Glow · Aug 14, 2011

First let me say welcome to the board wilco as I see this wasy your 5th post

wilco said:
_____, like some other male dominated _________," is nothing more than a way for horny older guys to have multiple sexual partners. It is amazing to me that anyone takes any part of ________ seriously.

I took out the word Mormon and was struck by how well the word Senator or Congressmen or President would work in filling in those same blanks!:twocents:

Glow · Aug 14, 2011

CathyR said:
Define the difference between a cult and a church and religion still has an equal voice and cults are not tax exempt entities.

We can't outlaw them, it is the right of an individual to belong to a cult if they so desire. We can however define the difference and remove their tax exempt status. This is not a government interference as Congress shall not make any laws in regards to religion. It is a revision of the tax code to define what makes a church or non profit organization that enjoys tax exempt status.

Example: A cult does not allow for it's members to own anything. Anything they own or possess is required by the cult leaders to be turned over for the good of the cult.

Then where does that leave the Amish? The Mennonites? The Catholic nuns and priests who take a vow of poverty?

CathyR said:
A cult uses the same tactics seen in domestic violence. Isolate the members from other members of society and even close relationships as those with parents, siblings and other relatives must be given up in order to a member.
A cult will justify breaking the law as their right and they are for whatever reason they make the members believe they are above the law or exempt from the law. .

Well in the case of the FLDS in Texas, the law allowed for any girl living in Texas as young as 14 to marry as recently as 2005. It seems if that was morally improper and a bad idea then, passing a law isnt going to hold much sway over a church group that believe their holy book and their "God" are a higher law. It still amazes me that until as recently as 2005 Texas law and the FLDS were on the same page marriage wise:loser:

CathyR said:
A cult will use any means possible to punish members for questioning their authority or balking at any of it's rules..

I cant think of anything more punishing than convincing believers that they will burn in hell forever for such transgressions as being fat or lazy (2 of the 7 deadly sins) and yet that is what one VERY large mainstream religion teaches.

CathyR said:
A cult operates in secret and asks it's members to not discuss their views, values and tenets with anyone outside of the cult.
A cult has closed services that do not allow for outside examination unless the people attending services have been fully indoctrinated.
A cult will devise ways to strip away a person's ability to make their own decisions and asks it's members to give up their individuality, civil rights, and constitutionally mandated rights.

A church does not do any of the above.

Churches do exactly all of the above in varying degrees. Thats what makes it such a two edged sword. I agree with what you are saying in the spirit in which you seem to mean it. It seems you would like some regulation of the damage that religions like we are discussing on this thread can do.

Problem is every regulation comes with its own problems. The last thing we need is our over burdened government trying to be the watch dog over religion. For one thing, people wouldnt tolerate it. Religion has always had a shadow twin of fanaticism. No government can take that on and win.

Its been tried. Thats where we get men like John Calvin and Martin Luther.

The sad fact is that maniacal pedophile religious leaders are found in every religion. Warren Jeffs is just one among them.

borndem · Aug 14, 2011

Cracka*Jaxx said:
I'm sure they can be charged with human trafficking and a myriad of other offenses. The problem for LE is obtaining actual evidence of a crime. People can't be arrested just because we assume they are committing a crime. Also, witnesses are needed and, as we all know, FLDS members refuse to come forward.

Regarding parents giving consent, a parent cannot give consent if the consent means breaking the law. They can't consent to allowing their child to be raped, for example. And, yes, the children are being forced because by law under age children cannot give consent.

Good post, Cracka -- If this isn't trafficking, I don't know what is -- there is probably no $$ involved (maybe other favors for the offering parents since it's very good to be able to place your too-young nubile daughter with a "groom" that is in high regard in the closed community -- that's how it was for C. Jessop).

And your remarks about consent were spot-on. No need to say more -- your words were well-said and just plain fact.

Shame, shame on all of them. It is truly despicable. Some of those parents who offer their daughters into such situations are treating those girls like a head of cattle or a good work horse, IMO. Yes, it's the tradition and it's how things are done, but it's not Christian (AS IF...) and it's just plain wrong. :banghead: ..... :twocents: .... JMHO

ADoyle · Oct 31, 2013

Glow said:
Then where does that leave the Amish? The Mennonites? The Catholic nuns and priests who take a vow of poverty?

Well in the case of the FLDS in Texas, the law allowed for any girl living in Texas as young as 14 to marry as recently as 2005. It seems if that was morally improper and a bad idea then, passing a law isnt going to hold much sway over a church group that believe their holy book and their "God" are a higher law. It still amazes me that until as recently as 2005 Texas law and the FLDS were on the same page marriage wise:loser:

I cant think of anything more punishing than convincing believers that they will burn in hell forever for such transgressions as being fat or lazy (2 of the 7 deadly sins) and yet that is what one VERY large mainstream religion teaches.

Churches do exactly all of the above in varying degrees. Thats what makes it such a two edged sword. I agree with what you are saying in the spirit in which you seem to mean it. It seems you would like some regulation of the damage that religions like we are discussing on this thread can do.

Problem is every regulation comes with its own problems. The last thing we need is our over burdened government trying to be the watch dog over religion. For one thing, people wouldnt tolerate it. Religion has always had a shadow twin of fanaticism. No government can take that on and win.

Its been tried. Thats where we get men like John Calvin and Martin Luther.

The sad fact is that maniacal pedophile religious leaders are found in every religion. Warren Jeffs is just one among them.

That's true that churches do some things, as in the mainstream LDS church which banned polygamy for over a century has temples that are only open to members in good standing who have met the requirements by living the lifestyle. Members are forbidden to discuss what goes on in those temples, as it's considered too sacred, and if a convert gets married in the temple, the convert's family is not allowed to witness the actual wedding ceremony. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion as they have the right to practice their religion as they see fit.

Which FLDS Rumors do you believe

What do you believe about the FLDS? You can choose as many answers as you want to.

The CPS raid was excessive

The CPS raid did more harm than good

The CPS raid did more good than harm

CPS should continue to monitor the FLDS

There is no abuse inside the YFZ ranch

Abuse is limited to a few isolated cases inside the YFZ ranch

The men are the only abusers in the YFZ ranch

The women are the only abusers in the YFZ ranch

The men and women are abusers in the YFZ ranch

Waterboarding exists

Babies are killed, sometimes due to being born with disabilities

The children have had excessive broken bones due to abuse

Lost boys are kicked out of the the ranch with no where to go

women always get to choose who they marry

women sometimes get to choose who they marry

women are assigned to a husband but can say no

women are assigned to a husband and have no choice

spouses and children can be taken from a husband and reassigned

generally speaking, men only have sex with people they are "married" to

any girl may be raped at any time

the women generally feel free

the women generally feel forced into their situations

the education system is sufficient

the FLDS are using silence to protect known abusers

rumored abuse aside, the FLDS lifestyle has many benefits for those that choose that lifestyle

The FLDS environment is generally peaceful

RIP Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joey Jr.

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

RIP Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joey Jr.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

Well-Known Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics