El Dorado's Mormon Thing

[jefelump]

from alexamenos:
as for the US, where there is no established church, the primary use of government regulation (as opposed to recognition*) of marriages was initially to impose a bigoted agenda....fighting polygamy (because that was something for asians and africans, not europeans) and preventing "mixed-race" marriages were high on the government's list (homosexual marriages being unimagined, then). i think if you scoured the state laws, you'd find all sorts of "you can't marry a white to a person who is 2/5ths indonesian....marriage licensing was a way of enforcing these laws.

Marriage licensing was also a way to generate further tax revenues. That's also why we have to pay for a drivers license, and then keep renewing it every X years.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

wmb --

Whatever the legal attack may be at some point in the future, the fact remains that no specific persons have been charged by the State with statutory rape as it stands today. What has happened, unquestionably, is that the State has taken children from parents on the grounds that the parents' beliefs may somehow one day in the indeterminate future lead to child abuse vis a vis statutory rape.

what is important to understand, i think, is that the law is sufficiently explicit in regards to when the State can take children from their parents:



Each of these conditions must be met for the state to lawfully take children from a parent. But the thing is....none of these conditions were satisfied for the vast, vast majority of the children abducted by the state (with the possible exception of the 3 or 6 or 31 girls who may have been pregnant at some time in the past and who also may have been minors in the past). I mean....I'm a reasonably prudent and cautious person, and I don't think a 4 year old boy is in immediate danger because at some point in the next decade he might be taught that it's good to have more than one wife.

Moreover, although the State is required to make reasonable efforts to provide for the safety of the child without removing the children from his/her parents, the State has gone out of its way to ensure nothing short of complete separation of 1 year old + children from their parents.

I think the State is way, way, way out of bounds, and the recent spate of malicious propaganda is an effort by the State to conceal their very unsound position by pumping up hatred for the flds.

I agree with you Alex. Problem is that CPS is part of the executive branch of government. They are not part of the judicial branch. CPS is empowered to act on behalf of children without meeting the full rule of law. From the perspective of CPS, the job of determining the future of the kids is the job of the court. Their job from their perspective is to grab kids where there MIGHT be a problem because they are kids. CPS is given that broad power. The courts routinely overturn CPS.

I think it sucks. But, it is what it is (a Parcells quote).

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I agree with you Alex. Problem is that CPS is part of the executive branch of government. They are not part of the judicial branch. CPS is empowered to act on behalf of children without meeting the full rule of law. From the perspective of CPS, the job of determining the future of the kids is the job of the court. Their job from their perspective is to grab kids where there MIGHT be a problem because they are kids. CPS is given that broad power. The courts routinely overturn CPS.

I think it sucks. But, it is what it is (a Parcells quote).

just a quibble, but, the CPS is absolutely bound by the 4th amendment to the US constitution (or, the 9th amendment to the Texas Constitution, which says the same thing).... from what i can gather, they routinely break the law and claim the right to do so because (drumroll please) "it's for the children," but breaking the law isn't the same as being above the law.

-------------------

to clarify a little....the 9th amendment to the Texas Constitution does not read: "The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.............unless it's for the children, in which case all bets are off."

[alexamenos]

pardon me for patting myself on the back a bit, but earlier when the state "reclassified" 26 women as "minors with children", and then prominently and publicly touted the exorbitant number of minors with children as evidence of YFZ wrongdoing, I suggested a bit of skepticism was in order, that perhaps some (many, most?) of these women were lying to stay with their children, etc., etc...

to date, 4 of these women have wound up in a court room, and in 4 cases it's turned out that they were, in fact, adults. Moreover, the CPS had every opportunity to know that they were adults.

----------------
make that 6 of 6.....7 of 7.....
----------------

this article is interesting, worth reading in its entirety, and one worth scrutizining closely, given time, on many details.....

the end is a diversion from the rest of the article, and interesting too.....

....CPS has said nothing about whether they think “Sarah” is real or not, saying that the call didn't force them to remove the children, and that what they found, which has yet to be truly revealed, did.

apparently, "what they found, which has yet to be truly revealed" demonstrates the horror endured by these children....

......hmmmm....so now the cps is saying "we have super duper uber compelling evidence that we haven't told you about, even though we've been through one well-publicized round of hearings and we're now going through second."

....the technical term for this ploy is "bull shit".

[alexamenos]

a blogger using the revealing nickname of "Pligchild" says:

There is a young girl who works in our office, she is probably 18 or 19. She has been working here for over three years, having dropped out of high school because she had a baby. Just recently she had another child, and I found out the father was a fellow employee who is in his forties. He quit the company and ditched his responsibilites.

Another fellow has told his live in girlfriend who has a three year old daughter by him that he has to leave her because he "knocked up" another girl.

Another guy lives with his ex-wife and her other ex-husband, "for the children" he says.

My boss just kicked out his live in girlfriend of six years, and I can't even listen to him for long without hearing his "date" stories.

AND THEN I read the news about what is happening to these mothers and children.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

a blogger using the revealing nickname of "Pligchild" says:

Yes, I have also pointed out that the "crimes" of the FLDS are committed regularly all around us and probably by some of you reading this...

[jefelump]

And probably by some people in CPS who initiated the raid

[alexamenos]

the notion that 31 girls 17 or under have children or re pregnant is completely unraveling (one of those <17 girls is, in fact, 28)...it's looking more like maybe 3 or 4 or 5, and whether these were teens being teens or victims of child abuse is another question...this is a pretty good example of why one must follow a story like a hawk to have any real understanding....

what the cps said then...

Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar says 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were living on the ranch in Eldorado. Of that group, 31 already have children or are pregnant.

....

CPS says there was a pattern of underage girls forced into so-called "spiritual marriages" with much older men at the ranch.

What the cps says now....

CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins denied any suggestion that the agency's massive undertaking may be on the verge of collapse, adding: "The numbers aren't important to us."

He said CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families, which made establishing ages nearly impossible. He added that his agency never intentionally misled anyone when it said it believed it had more than two dozen females who were being sexually abused as minors.

a) bullshit the cps "never intentionally misled anyone"....at the same time they were touting the 31 of 50 as evidence of a pervasive pattern forced underaged married, they were also touting to the press that they were investigating sexual abuse of little boys (bullshit) and they were touting that 41 out of 400+ kids had broken bones at one point or another (for the record, 100% of my parents' children had broken bones, and it wasn't abuse).

The CPS was intentionally misleading people.

b) as to the notion that the "CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families", recall earlier where I said:

at some point in the distant or not too distant future, some or many of these women will change their story and say that they are, in fact, over the age of 18. some noxious people will then cite their dishonesty in their dealings with the state as further evidence of their guilt, as if undeniably a mother should exhibit more loyalty to her state than to her own children

some of the conflicting and false information given by the families to the CPS is absolutely justifiable, IMHO.......it's not an indication that they have something greater to hide, but rather that they're trying to protect their children.





---------------------

also....

"He [CPS spokesman] said CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families, which made establishing ages nearly impossible."

Let's not forget that another part of what "stymied" the CPS was their unwillingness to accept things like driver's licenses and birth certificates as evidence of age.

[u2sarajevo]

My blood gets boiling every time you post an update.

It kills me because the general public takes the notion that the CPS is in the right on this. The Musers were discussing this during Muse in the News a couple of weeks back and Junior dismissively said that they should absolutely take all their children away and that he would have thought that BEFORE the false allegations were made public by CPS.

So essentially in the publics eye CPS has already won. Hopefully justice will set it right.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by u2sarajevo

My blood gets boiling every time you post an update......

well....enjoy this one.........

Judge Tom Gossett told CPS to find a way to reunite Louisa Barlow Jessop with two children who were with her until she gave birth on May 12. A day later, the state acknowledged she was 22; it left the newborn in her care but moved the younger children, ages 2 and 3.
A guardian ad litem "implored" Gossett to return the children, saying they have done poorly since being separated from their mother.
"The 3-year-old has become very withdrawn," Marie Clark said, while the couple's son "is not eating well or sleeping well."
The judge said it was "not acceptable" when told by a CPS worker there was no place that could take the mother and her children and gave the agency a week to resolve the issue.
It may not take that long. Louisa Jessop, who participated in the hearing by telephone, said the shelter she is in will let them join her.
Asked by her husband, Dan, why the state had taken his children, Gossett said a "wide loop" had been thrown around the FLDS community that might not fit all parents. The state, he said, had concerns about the FLDS' beliefs, plural and underage marriages and "communal attitude."
If those allegations prove unfounded, "I'll be the first to apologize to you if it turns out you're not a person who has abused your child," the judge told Dan Jessop, who was in the courtroom. "There is no proof of abuse in your case. That gives you a leg up."

I would say to Judge Gosset, "as there is no proof of abuse in their case, instead of giving Dan and Louisa Jessop a leg up you ought to give them their goddamned children back."

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


this is a story where i've lost even the pretense of objectivity, but as Stephen Colbert might say, it's hard to be objective when the facts are so damned biased.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

I would say to Judge Gosset, "as there is no proof of abuse in their case, instead of giving Dan and Louisa Jessop a leg up you ought to give them their goddamned children back."

Doesn't that worthless hemp rag known as the "United States Constitution" say the same thing?

[alexamenos]

lol....just noticed your "diamond member" comment.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

lol....just noticed your "diamond member" comment.

lol - just noticed you "lol'd"...

[alexamenos]

i just don't know how else to respond when someone claims to have a diamond member...

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

i just don't know how else to respond when someone claims to have a diamond member...

I wish people in the Iron Man thread understood that - they need to respect my diamond member...

Diamond > Iron = Underdog's Opinion > Popular Opinion










[we now return to our regularly-scheduled thread...]

[alexamenos]

diamonds are a woman's best friend....

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

diamonds are a woman's best friend....

Everyone's moms on d-m.com seem to think so...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Everyone's moms on d-m.com seem to think so...

but not their underaged daughters, I trust....i'd have to call the cps on you if that were the case.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

but not their underaged daughters, I trust....i'd have to call the cps on you if that were the case.

zing!

[alexamenos]

What we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. -- some dead philosopher

link...

Life Magazine Article, Sept 14, 1953

"THE LONELY MEN OF SHORT CREEK"

THEY AWAIT TRIAL AS RESULT OF POLYGAMY UPROAR

For men used to having as many as five women and 21 children around the house it was a lonely situation for the men of Short Creek, Ariz. Stolidly they ate a breakfast of oatmeal and fried eggs, (above). They were still too stunned to comprehend what had happened.

The Short Creekers are a “fundamentalist” heretical splinter of the Mormon church, who live underneath vaulting red cliffs – the Towers of Tumurru – in one of the most inaccessible parts of the U.S., 150 miles from the nearest railroad. They believe “in all the doctrines and covenants of Joseph Smith,” including communal living and the famous 132nd section sanctioning polygamy, which the orthodox Mormon Church renounced in 1890. But last July the sovereign state of Arizona in the person of 200 state troopers ---five troopers per Short Creek man---descended on the colony.

Without making a direct charge of polygamy, the troopers arrested the men on charges of conspiriacy to violate a host of laws from statutory rape to misappropriation of school funds. Governor Howard Pyle accused the community of being “unalterably dedicated to the wicked theory that every maturing girl child (usually before she reached the age of 16) should be forced into multiple wifehood with men of all ages.” While the Short Creek men were in jail, the stated packed nearly all of the town’s 85 women and 250 children 450 miles away to Phoenix. Then the 36 men were release on bail pending hearings on Sept. 28. The men walked from behind bars into their lonely town. Heaviest of their burdens was the state’s disclosure of its intention not merely to wipe out the community but to place the children as state welfare charges in suitable Mormon homes. The men’s religion forbids them to show anger, but one finally burst out, “What we are worried about is that we are never going to see our children again.”

....

In proceeding against the rest of the men of Short Creek, Arizona forced a tricky legal problem. Since the Short Creekers avoid civil marriage ceremonies, it is difficult to convict them of polygamy. The state therefore devised the plan of charging the Short Creekers with numerous other violations, for which the prosecution will demand heavy fines with the design of bankrupting the colony. Its investigators are collecting evidence, they say, to prove many women were reluctant participants in plural unions--- for example, that one girl of 17 was almost forced to marry a 70-year-old. But the Short Creekers deny these charges and are preparing to defend themselves on constitutional grounds. One of them, a University of Utah graduate, says, “The Bill of Rights says we can worship God as we plese. My religion is not abridging the rights of others….Whose is the next religion that is going to become unpopular?”

....

ultimately, public opinion turned against the State of Arizona in favor of religious freedom and due process of law, the State authorities looked like a bunch of asses who were acting on a religious agenda, and all of the short creek families were re-united, only to become far more insulated and distrustful of outside agencies.

we're not quite the same country today -- arguments for due process are often met with "due process? who cares, they're raping kids...."

.......so who knows how it will turn out, but like the dude said, what we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

[alexamenos]

Appeals court rules officials acted improperly in removing FLDS children

ELDORADO, Texas — An Austin appeals court has ruled that Texas child welfare authorities acted improperly in removing more than 450 children from the FLDS Church's YFZ Ranch.

The 3rd Court of Appeals ruled on a legal challenge by a group of FLDS mothers seeking to have their children returned to them immediately.

"CPS was not justified in removing these children," said Cynthia Martinez of the Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid Society, which is representing the mothers. "They did not provide any evidence that the children were in danger, and they acted hastily in removing the children."

It is unclear if the children will be returned immediately to the ranch or what impact this will have on ongoing status hearings.

Outside the ranch, an FLDS woman rushed up to attorney Julie Balovich and hugged her, crying. They both went onto the ranch, but did not speak with reporters.

"This is huge," Balovich told the Deseret News as she left the YFZ Ranch.

One FLDS woman, who was headed to court in San Angelo this afternoon, seemed pleased, but reserved, about the decision.

"That's encouraging," said a woman named Annette, when told of the decision by a Deseret News reporter. "I'm waiting to see if it's really going to happen."

Marleigh Meisner, a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, said the agency has just received word of the ruling. "We are assessing the impact it may have on our case. Any decision regarding an appeal will be made at a later date."

After hearing the news outside the San Angelo courthouse, one FLDS woman said, "There is justice in America."

The woman was standing with William Crouse, a parenting instructor from the House of Yahweh, which is another religious group in Texas that has come under scrutiny by state officials. Criminal charges have been filed against members of that group, alleging it is a "sex cult."

"People are finally starting to see through it," Crouse said. "They're attacking these people for what they believe in. It's nothing but malarkey."

Well kiss my ass. I didn't see this one coming....

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Well kiss my ass. I didn't see this one coming....

Isn't it refreshing to know that you're not the only person fighting the good fight?

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Underdog

Isn't it refreshing to know that you're not the only person fighting the good fight?

what sucks is that CPS still has their kids, they won't be in any hurry to give them back, and they won't be ordered by any court to do so any time soon.....

The state's Child Protective Services agency already has indicated it will appeal the decision to the Texas Supreme Court

the CPS has possession of the kids, and possession is nine-tenths of the law, as the saying goes....this is what I meant earlier when I said to mcsluggo that the State has "custody", and terms like "temporary" do not modify the meaning of "custody". and this is why I say that this thing is just beginning -- the CPS is will fight it tooth and nail.....

[DirkFTW]

Wow I fell behind. Thanks Alex for posting all this stuff. Reading through the last couple pages has been eye-opening.

[wmbwinn]

It is sad that it had to go all the way to the Appeals Court before a Judge finally ruled using the law as a guide...

[alexamenos]

number of so called "disputed" minors -- 25
number who have been heard in court -- 17
number who have been determined to be adults -- 17
number who have been determined to be minors -- 0

FLDS - 17
CPS - 0

Recalling that the CPS repeatedly touted the "31 minors pregnant or parented" line, and recalling the number of times the CPS has claimed that the FLDS have repeatedly lied about all manner of things, this line rather sums up some frustrations on the part of the FLDS, I think....

SAN ANGELO, Texas - Tina Louise Steed* had just one question for a judge who declared her an adult Thursday morning.
"I'm wondering how come they wouldn't believe my ID in the first place?" she asked Judge Jay Weatherby.

yeah, why wouldn't the CPS just take an ID if they're trying to establish someone's age?

there are no two ways about it -- the CPS was acting in bad faith....i think the entire ordeal has to be viewed in this light, including the absurd-on-its-face hoax of a complaint that started it all.



(*I guess her parents were Gilligan's Island fans.....)

[wmbwinn]

I was listening to a Yahoo News media file/video file, and they said that CPS claimed they couldn't return more [than the 12 they have returned] of the children to their parents "because they hadn't finished DNA testing and didn't know who the children belonged to"

How is that for an excuse to keep the children longer???

[alexamenos]

some ugly stuff pulled out in a hearing and is being floated around that shows Warren Jeffs smooching with a little, and i mean little, girl....really ugly stuff...

Warren Jeffs, btw, is in jail.....and I can't imagine what this picture had to do with the hearing in question other than an opportunity to heat up the smear campaign as this thing approaches supreme court....

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I was listening to a Yahoo News media file/video file, and they said that CPS claimed they couldn't return more [than the 12 they have returned] of the children to their parents "because they hadn't finished DNA testing and didn't know who the children belonged to"

How is that for an excuse to keep the children longer???

from what I understand, the CPS hasn't so much returned 12 children as they've grudgingly agreed to grant the parents of these children more visitation time...visitation under CPS supervision, of course.

this thing ain't over, not by a long shot....the CPS hasn't shown much regard for the law up until this point. what should make us think they'll do an about face now?

[Ninkobei]

well good job following this Alex. I wasnt convinced that the state was doing wrong at first but you've really made some good points. of course, now that I say that I'm sure there will be some horrible turn of events that will make me eat my words...but still a nice job.

[MavsX]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...7081flds1.html


click the link to see the creepy ass pictures


MAY 27--In what may be the creepiest court exhibits ever, Texas officials have released photos of imprisoned polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs in intimate clinches with two underage girls. The photos, which you'll find on the following pages, were introduced Friday at a child custody hearing stemming from last month's raid at a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS) compund. Jeffs, the former FLDS leader, was convicted last year of rape as an accomplice for forcing a 14-year-old girl to marry--and have sex against her will--with her 19-year-old cousin. As seen below, Jeffs is pictured with a girl named Loretta in three photos, which were snapped in January 2005 and recorded the couple's "First Anniversary." Six other images show Jeffs, now 52, in July 2006 photos with a girl named Merrianne, who was 12 at the time. In the photos, Jeffs is passionately kissing both girls. The so-called prophet lived in a home on the YFZ Ranch, from which hundreds of children were removed last month by Child Protective Services investigators. (3 pages)

[alexamenos]

The so-called prophet lived in a home on the YFZ Ranch, from which hundreds of children were removed last month by Child Protective Services investigators.

actually....the so-called prophet is now living in an arizona prison, and i don't know when or even whether he ever set foot at YFZ. generally...

jeffs, from what I can gather, is a first rate creep...

some mormon fundies still defend jeffs, but then again some republicans still defend george w. bush (ok, unfair shot...but the point is that it's not unheard of for human beings to prefer pleasant lies over devastating truths, and nothing in civilized jurisprudence says holding a person of low regard in high regard is illegal, or abusive)

mormon fundies, as far as i can see, have diverse opinions on when it is acceptable for a girl to marry -- it is absolutely incorrect, imho, to surmise that mormon fundie parents would hand their 13 year old daughters over to a 50 year old because a prophet says it's acceptable.

more notably....

these pictures were released in a hearing concerning whether Dan and Louisa Jessop could keep their 10 day old baby boy. these photos don't show Dan, or Louisa, or much less the 10 day old baby boy. the relevance of these sickening photos with regard to this case is obvious -- it's yet another CPS publicity stunt.

in not-so-coincidental news....

Texas officials ask state Supreme Court to stay lower court ruling

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services continues to argue it does not have sufficient evidence to match FLDS children with alleged mothers, in a new document filed today with the state Supreme Court.

On Friday, the department asked the court to stay a lower court's ruling that children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were kept in state custody improperly and that they should be returned to their families.

bearing in mind that this is the same group that didn't consider driver's licenses and birth certificates and bishop's records sufficient evidence to determine the ages of 25 young ladies....

the 3rd Court reversed the decision on 38 specific cases where the children and parents were clearly identified. according to the 3rd Court, the problems with the State's case in these cases was (1) the abject lack of any evidence of physical or sexual abuse, (2) the very wrong and unlawful insistence that a belief system is tantamount imminent danger, and (e) the failure to follow the laws regarding the removal of children from parents as stipulated by the legistature of the State of Texas.

how to say this????

the 3rd Court's ruling was a unanimous (3-0) decision -- something of an ass-kicking, iow....what the 3rd court basically said to the the lower court (and indirectly, the CPS) was "you guys are idiots. not only are you making a mockery of the legal system, but you're making a mockery of kangaroo courts too."

the State knows it has no case according to the law, so it's seeking to influence the courts by cranking up the heat from public opinion....

.....justice, schmustice.....it's all about the mob rule, baby, and the state is very adept at playing this game.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

I was listening to a Yahoo News media file/video file, and they said that CPS claimed they couldn't return more [than the 12 they have returned] of the children to their parents "because they hadn't finished DNA testing and didn't know who the children belonged to"

How is that for an excuse to keep the children longer???

with respect to ^^^

this snippet on what it took for the parents of 4 of the aforementioned 12 to get to see their kids....

The negotiations went on for more than five hours, Haas said, and involved representatives of the Texas Attorney General's Office. In the end, a written agreement was hammered out and approved by the judge - but a caseworker still refused to turn the couple's children over to them. The reasons shifted: a media gag order was needed; the temporary home had to pass inspection first; confusion over who agreed to the deal.

It took almost an hour and three trips back to see the judge before CPS released the children...

so....after a court ruling which, in a nutshell, said "there's absolutely no evidence you've abused your kids and no reason for the State to have them," it took the jessops 5 hours of haggling to get to see their kids under State supervision....

guilty until proven innocent, and then some.

[jefelump]

That judge should have held these CPS idiots in contempt of court.

[alexamenos]

a somewhat longwinded and 'roundabout route to making a couple of points here............

an interesting example from a fundie mormon (female), this in response to the question of "does the prophet tell you who you must marry?"

[1]When I was married.. I was asked by the Prophet "how do you feel about marrying so'n'so? I replied " I feel fine about that" I knew who he was although I didn't "know him".I think this is what is meant by most of our women when they say they "chose" their Husbands. [2]Although there are some couples that "chose each other" in many cases they were sent away to repent and later married by the Prophet.

1. the sentiment with respect to [1] is very, very common.....the "prophet" is essentially playing the role of a matchmaker, not of slavedriving pimp of underaged prostitutes (not necessarily, at least).

2. number [2] causes one to wonder what the phrase "chose each other" must mean if chosing each other is sufficient reason in some cases to send two people away to repent? "Chose each other", I submit, may be a fundie mormon euphemism akin to "hooking up"--ie, that which necessitates the fundie mormon shotgun wedding, as I suggested earier.

3. as near as i can tell, marriage in fundie mormon culture means something different than in our culture....i fear speaking too much from ignorance, but it seems to me that being "spiritually married" means just that -- married in spirit, but not necessarily in the flesh. iow......if "spiritual marriage" means "marriage", why is the qualifier "spiritual" necessary at all?*

all of this suggests to me a couple of things.....

1. statements like "Jane Doe, aged 16, was forced to marry so'n'so" are going to be made and heldout as if they are in and of themselves evidence of wrongdoing. I submit that there are other, less shocking explanations for such occurences.

2. i think some dudes are going to get charged with abuse on the basis that they are "spiritually married" to 13, 14, or 15 year old girls. i advise a little intellectual agnosticism on the question of whether a spiritual marriage is prima facie evidence of sexual abuse.

3. as proceedings proceed, i think it's quite plausible that there are specific and isolated cases of sexual abuse of girls aged 14-17. even if spiritual marriage does indeed signify something wholly spiritual and not physical, i'm way too much of a cynic with regards to human nature to think that there aren't a few dudes taking advantage of a little fresh tail. so i won't be terribly sympathetic to any of the fundie dudes if there is moderately compelling physical evidence of abuse, but still....

due process matters, the ends do not justify the means.


-------------------------

* one possibility is that a "spiritual marriage" is distinguished from a "legal marriage", but for a variety of reasons i don't think the answer is this simple.

[mcsluggo]

you are reading between the lines ALOT to make some points that you really don't need to.

it is enough to say that a shared religion is not enough to implicate every single member of the faith in some member's wrong-doings. In this country we do not arrest or punish based on the probability that someone will commit a crime in the future, we punish based on the establishment that that individual has indeed committed a crime in the past.

so long winded short... we need to find specific evidence of wrong doing in each and every individual case before punishment is doled out. period.

however, that said... these guys appear to be quite whack. If one of MY daughters wandered in there in her teen years, I would go balistic and rip the place to shreds to get her out (and worry about my personal legal concequences later). Your attempts to pick nits about what they mean by "marriage" in the case of 14 or 16 year girls only weakens your otherwise strong arguments.

We can simultaneusly accept the fact that individuals have been wronged by the authorities (if that is shown to be the case) AND there is all kinds of unsavory shit going on that perhaps SHOULD draw the attention of the authorities... or at least our individual tsk tsking outrage.


i repeat... those guys are whacky, and not in a good way.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcluggo

you are reading between the lines ALOT to make some points that you really don't need to.

actually....i'm not reading anything "between the lines"....."chosing each other" is a phrase fundamentalist mormons use on the lines, as is "spiritual marriage." what i'm trying to do is read and comprehend what is actually written on the lines without imposing my own cultural and religious biases.

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Your attempts to pick nits about what they mean by "marriage" in the case of 14 or 16 year girls only weakens your otherwise strong arguments.

I don't think it is picking too many nits to ask whether "marriage", however qualified, implicitly means physical consummation especially when a) such a marriage is likely to be held up as evidence of sexual abuse; and b) i've seen plenty to make me think that spiritual marriages aren't necessarily consummated physically.

....let's also add to this that it is absolutely legal for 50 year old men to marry 16 year old girls in the state of texas, and it's even possible for a 55 year old man to legally marry 14 year old girls in the state of texas today. So you too have a nit to pick with regards to the meaning of "marriage" if you want to make the case that the mere fact that a 14 or 16 year old girl is *married* is sufficient reason to shout child abuse.

If one of MY daughters wandered in there in her teen years, I would go balistic and rip the place to shreds to get her out

I would do the same if I had a daughter in a public school.

[mcsluggo]

any public school? really?


My oldest daughter is just finishing her kindergarten year at a public school that i find to be outstanding. (even if they DID just ban tag at recess, as a "contact sport")


...and "picking nits" isn't quite the right term... rather scouring the language for plausible deniability. Unless somebody EXPLICITLY tries to state that these marriages are somehow platonic, I am perfectly happy assume that there are many more scenes of old men driving their tonges down the throats of little girls (like the Jeffs photos). I can't make an informed response to your comment about the LEGALITY of 50 year old men marrying 14 year old girls... but I can make an informed MORAL response. puke.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

...and "picking nits" isn't quite the right term... rather scouring the language for plausible deniability. Unless somebody EXPLICITLY tries to state that these marriages are somehow platonic, I am perfectly happy assume that there are many more scenes of old men driving their tonges down the throats of little girls (like the Jeffs photos).

scouring the language for plausible deniability? hardly.....

there are, in fact, ample examples of plural marriages within the flds which are platonic, undertaken for reasons only of establishing family ties or helping out a friend. there is ample scholarly debate over whether many of the multiple marriages of the early mormon prophets were platonic or sexual in nature....moreover, there is plainly a very strong religious belief among the flds that being "sealed" to a prophet or a priest is a highly treasured thing in the after-life--whether this spiritual marriage necessarily involves consummation in this life is uncertain in my view.

all of which is to say---our cultural bias causes us to believe that marriage and physical consummation go hand and hand -- while you are happy to assume that this must also be the case in flds culture, I don't think this is a comfortable assumption. now, from a strictly legal perspective, if someone shows me a picture of a 50 year old dude cramming his tongue down the throat of 12 year old girl, then yeah, i find that reasonably compelling evidence of wrong doing. all i'm suggesting is that if the CPS, who has in the past been deliberately misleading imo, says tomorrow that "Joe Jessop, 41, is spiritually married to Jane Jessop, 15", then we should tap the breaks and ask why the qualifier "spiritual" is necessary if *married* just means *married.*


(so let's call it the argument from grammar -- adjectives modify the meanings of nouns....this is what adjectives do. the adjective "spiritual" must modify the meaning of "marriage", otherwise it is a meaningless word. If it is meaningless, why is it used so often in connection with this case? If it modifies the meaning of "marriage", how so?)

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I can't make an informed response to your comment about the LEGALITY of 50 year old men marrying 14 year old girls... but I can make an informed MORAL response. puke.

up until a couple of years (2005) ago the legal age of marriage was 18, or 14 with parental consent. now, the age is 18, 16 with parental consent, and 14 with a court order....texas revamped it's marriage laws (including anti-bigamy statutes) at about the time the representative from Schleicher County got nervous about his new neighbors -- not a coincidence, at all....

icky, sure....but the reason we're having this discussion is not because such an act is icky, but instead because it's a icky and done by someone of a particular religious persuasion.

pardon me for delving into the religious beliefs of those that we the people of texas see fit to persecute for religious reasons.


more longwindedness here --> link

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

whether this spiritual marriage necessarily involves consummation in this life is uncertain in my view.....

being "sealed" and "celestial marriage" and "spiritual marriage" are all synonyms, as near as I can tell, and on the subject of celestial marriages and the LDS I find this quote:

On page 72 of the 1998 edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions, the LDS Church clarified that a woman may also be sealed to more than one man. A woman, however, may not be sealed to more than one man while she is alive. She may only be sealed to subsequent partners after she has died.

do you get that? according to orthodox mormon thinking, a woman can get "married" more than once but only after she's dead. tell me that "married" here means "go see a judge and then have sex in a hotel."

if orthodox mormons are this wacky, imagine how much wackier they are out on the ranch.