MY TAKE ON THE FLDS COMPOUND IN TEXAS
April 29, 2008
I have chewed on this since the initial raid and have followed each detail closely.
I’d like to preface this with the fact that I do believe Mormonism to be a false religion. If I were to believe any different than I would not be a true believer in my faith. That said, we have dear Mormon friends, and in general, I love the lifestyle, the importance of family, sanctity of their bodies and commitment the followers of LDS exude. So, essentially; I am not prejudice against this religion. Often I feel that any belief in anything outside of yourself is respectable. Of course this belief does not always apply to Muslims.
The State of Texas has taken it upon themselves to remove children who were being sexually abused. Their definition of sexual abuse in this instance is statutory rape.
Sure, we might all find their lifestyle odd. Many men might would fantasize about having multiple wives to choose from, but when realistically processing this, know that it most likely would be too difficult of a challenge. In the LDS faith one of the goals is to procreate as much as possible. They believe that after death, those who followed the faith, will become themselves a “god” and inherit a planet to rule over. This is the reasoning behind having so many children.
The Mormon Theological Axiom As man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.
No where in the Old or New Testament is man promised to become a god. There are a vast number of resources available to explain LDS and how it IS NOT MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY. My suggestion is this short film called The God Makers.
Still with me? I just want to be clear as possible regarding where I stand on Mormonism.
So we’ve covered the background regarding why they have so many children. If one of the goals of your religion is to pro-create as much as possible, then the logical answer to that is multiple wives. At most a woman should have a child no more than once a year. In order to accomplish this goal within LDS, there needs to be more women (more wives) having children.
They are not a religion that bases their belief of polygamy on satiating sexual desires. It is to pro-create as much as possible in order to reach a higher level in the afterlife. Older men have proven themselves. Proven themselves to be financially stable, mentally and emotionally stable; and the young girls they marry are more likely to be fertile. If you remove any of man’s laws, if you remove any emotions that we might process this with; this arrangement makes more sense than anything else if the goal is simply to pro-create, and polygamy in FLDS accomplishes this.
Back to Texas. So the State of Texas has decided that these girls are being sexually abused. Federal and State laws prohibit multiple marriages and intercourse with a minor. But this is part of their religion. If America has religious freedom, than these people have been discriminated against by the government.
“But Stacy, what if your religion commands you to kill and sacrifice animals and babies?” That is an entirely different field of play. Don’t leave me a comment stating that.
The government has decided what is best for these children. This is the same government that has decided that it is okay to teach kindergartners that families come in all shapes and sizes. That some families have two mommies, some families have two daddies and that it’s okay. This is the same government that has decided that boys in 6th grade need to know how to use a condom properly, so they demonstrate it in an sex education class. The same government who sets up birth control clinics in high schools and directs young girls (GIRLS) to Planned Parenthood to kill their baby that was CONCEIVED OUT OF WEDLOCK. The same government who tells our children that it’s okay to be homosexual and allows gay/lesbian clubs to meet in public high schools, yet tells the religious kids they cannot have their clubs because it violates the separation of church and state.
Are the girls getting married in the FLDS case too young to get married? Yes, they are. But how many girls are having intercourse before the age of 15 in our society now anyway?
These are a respectable group of people and they raise their children to be polite and thoughtful. These children receive a better education than what the State has to offer. They don’t use drugs, they don’t drink alcohol, they don’t have intercourse out of wedlock. They don’t surf for porn on the Internet, they don’t download violent music with questionable lyrics, they don’t text message at the dinner table and they’re not cutters. Crime is virtually non-existent and STD’s do not run rampant.
Are they odd regarding the age they marry? Perhaps. Many theologians believe that the Virgin Mary was herself about 14 when she married Joseph. For thousands of years girls have been married off young and it is only in the 20th century that the change had been made. How many of you had grandparents, great grandparents that you know the female was 14 or 15 when she married your grandfather? This happens for the perpetuation of the species.
Back to Texas. The State of Texas (all states) has decided what is and isn’t appropriate for our children. They say that the FLDS belief system is warped. In my humble opinion, I believe that State’s belief system is warped.
The logical solution to this is for the state to return the children. Mothers and fathers have had their children kidnapped. Kidnapped by someone who has proven to not have the best of intentions for our nation’s children. They should have negotiated with the elders. They should have said “look, what you’re doing here is against state and federal law. But let’s compromise. You promise not to marry off anyone under the age of 18, and we’ll let you keep your children. We will come in regularly for inspection, and if we find any girl under 18 pregnant, or find out that she’s been sexually active; we will remove her and place her in foster care.”
Now, the State of Texas is dealing with hundreds of children, all at once, needing to be in foster homes. No, they need to be in their homes. These people do no harm to society. They farm their own food, they meet their own needs, they are not a burden on the government and they have virtually no carbon footprint.
Again, do I believe Mormonism to be a true religion? No. I believe most Mormons though do not understand the secret theologies their religion has and the Satanic background and similarities that is it’s foundation.
Give the children back Texas. Give them back. These parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit.
Posted in Political Stuff, Spiritual Stuff
April 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am
But are the girls being given the choice as to if they wish to be married to older men and bearing their children? Of course, this is what they’re brought up thinking they have to do, but do they want to? If so, ok. If not, then they should not have to do so. And I have a feeling that they have no choice in this. They’re brought up to do as they’re told, and that’s what they do. But I know that when I was 14, I would not have wanted to marry a man who was two or three times my age.
And I agree with you on the Mormon religion, btw. And I’ve had personal experience with it. I actually feel that it’s pretty cult-like.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
It is how they are brought up. They are brought up to believe that they will marry an older man when they are still a child. But how is this different than individuals born into obscure tribes around this world? Their lives have been pre-destined as well. Bloom where you are planted.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Amen Stacy.
First and foremost, what really needs to be hammered down, is that it was all started with a phone call, that has been PROVEN to be a HOAX.
Secondly, granted the Mormon faith is strange, but I have never met one that wasn’t the most polite person I have ever met. And more accepting of the fact that i’m Catholic, than most Evangelicals.
Thirdly, Government wise, this could have turned into another Waco. Thank God it didn’t. But the fact that, they (the state) believes that they are doing the “right thing” for the kids, is a friggin joke. Like I said in my post, “These so-called Conservatives, who believe that Hillary is a Commie, for writing her book It takes a village book, are the same ones cheering on this raid”.
Let’s be honest here, the people screaming about “Religious Freedom”, and are nothing but Evangelicals, who believe THEY are right on how “religious freedom” should be used.
All and all, I love the post. Would you mind if I tracked back to it??
April 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Of course not dear. I read what you had posted the other day and knew you’d be interested. I’ll make my way back over there now that you have the comments working.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Stacy, I can’t agree with the comment about negotiation, as it is predicated on the notion that the state has the right to determine what a religion may believe and practice. If their religion is not hampered by the state, then there is nothing for the state to negotiate.
On the other hand, this negotiation is essentially what the Feds did with the LDS long ago, to get them to drop their support for polygamy.
As to what any state can or cannot legislate, if you refer to the Federalist Papers, you will find that our founding fathers intended the Establishment clause to limit the Federal government, as does the rest of the Constitution. It was not a limit on what states could do. Indeed, had the intentions of the founding fathers been honored, I see no reason why Utah could not have been set up as a Mormon state, complete with polygamy.
None of that has anything to do with my own religious beliefs, nor whether the LDS is a false religion or not.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Do I think that a 14 year old girl marrying a 50 year old man is wrong? Yes, I do. My beef is more how the State has decided that it will be the moral compass. As they pass out condoms in junior high school, as they hand girls Planned Parenthood pamphlets; and this is what they constitute as wrong.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Stacy, I agree that a 14 year old girl marrying a 50 year old man is wrong. But my point was that the state can’t be partly an arbiter over religious practices — either we have religious freedom, or not. It’s akin to the problem of being a little bit pregnant — no half-measures are possible.
Given the choice, I would prefer to have the state altogether out of the business of approving of religions. If it means we put up with all sorts of wacko cults, so be it. The alternative is that they can eventually decide your church or mine must be closed.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
But that is the point Bill. There are already all sorts of wacko cults and they go after this one? Muslims are allowed to preach death to America in mosques across this country. The evil Jeremiah Wright is allowed a platform for his hate speech. And political banter, which by law non-profit churches are not allowed to do to keep that status. Yet, they’ve chosen the FLDS on a technicality.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Yes, I understand. Hence my statement that the state should have no right to interfere. This is simply a less blundered version of the Waco invasion.
April 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Agreed.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Stacy, I agree, the state of Texas blew it…If the children are abused and need to be separated, Texas could have easily allowed the women and children to stay in the “compound” and the men removed…guards posted , etc. As for Mormonism I found a couple sites a few years ago you and your readers might like …one is http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon146.htm…the story of Mary Ann Benson, wife of Steve Benson, (grandson of E.T. Benson who was “President of the Church”…love your blog btw.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
stacy;
i was tempted to blog on this several times, but didnt know where to begin. and it appears other bloggers were equally stymied.
big sloppy kudos to you for doing a whiz bang job here.
my thoughts were about 85% the same as yours.
i think this was brought about by two forces:
the state hates it when it cant control your kid’s education.
and evangelicals (lds haters) hold great power in TX.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Yep Gino. That last statement has been in my thoughts as well.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The topic seems suited to a repetition of this poem:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
If we do not speak out in support of a church with which we may disagree, who will speak out in defense of our churches, when the government comes after them?
I heard a great speaker last week in a local church. One thing he said struck me more than any other. He visits over 100 churches a year, speaking at each of them. And at not one, since September 11, 2001, has he heard anyone pray for Osama bin Laden. Jesus taught us to pray for our enemies; where is our faith if we do not? We can pray for him to stop attacking, to see the light, even to become a Christian. But if we do not pray for him at all, that is a failure in our own faith.
And if we can pray for him, then how can we not pray for the FLDS folks?
April 30th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Bravo Bill. Bravo.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Stacy, I see your point, and don’t wish for any further government interference with religion, however when children don’t have the choices that they should where do we draw the line of justifiable interference. We are in North America here, not some isolated little tribe elsewhere. We believe that each individual is important and should have the opportunities (rights?) available to those living in our countries (USA & Canada).
I know our local Mennonites give children a year or two of ‘freedom’ in their late teens to give them the chance to choose the secluded lifestyle or to turn their backs on it. These girls have not really had a choice, and can we sit back knowing that this is happening and not do something about it. I hope we would do something about it if we felt that the Muslim church was doing something similar, or even if my own church was - sometimes our own internal eyes don’t realize the evil that we do.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Thanks, Stacy, but I don’t think I deserve a bravo. It’s as hard for me to pray for bin Laden as it is for anyone else.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Steve, it’s that slippery slope. My religion is ok, but yours is not…. How’s that again?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Thing is, there are so many layers to this story and so many ways in which to view it. I do see all sides, but the first side I see is children being taken away from their mothers. As a mother, that is my first priority.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:58 am
There are indeed many layers. And I agree that the first item of importance is the intrusion of the state in removing children from their mothers. No, make that from their families.
Second in importance is the matter of religious freedom. IF and ONLY IF, the state is in possession of proof that children have been raped, thereby breaking state laws (meaning the victims are minors under the law, and statutory rape is the crime), then removal of the children WITH their mothers may be appropriate. Better still, remove the men accused of the rapes, and place them elsewhere — in custody, if they won’t stay away from the compound in the short term — until the cases can be tried. Innocent until proved guilty is also at jeopardy here, and the several states are guilty, as they have been for years, of taking presumptive action, premised on the safety and well being of children trumping the rights of citizens under the law.
At no point, however, do I find any rationale for the state to intrude into a religious issue. However, neither do I consider that a religious belief can override duly enacted state laws against rape or polygamy. Laws against both have been on the books for over a century in most jurisdictions, so any marriage entered into in violation of the polygamy laws has no legal foundation. Similarly, rape remains rape, whether the citizen adopts religious beliefs in contravention of the law or not.
The troublesome issue, however, is in how the state may undertake to learn of the rapes. It must be bound by normal laws, as would apply to any other situation, meaning that warrants are needed for intrusions into private domiciles.
And none of that is to suggest that I condone the rape of children.
April 30th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Another soft target taken down by government. I wonder how long before they go after the Amish with the excuse that their cows fart too much. I am conservative and don’t know any other conservatives that would support this or any other raid on peaceful people by big brother government.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I understand that they’re being taken away from their mothers, and in most cases I would think this is a terrible thing. But in this case, they are being removed from mothers who allow their children to be sexually abused, and possibly physically abused, by men who are much older than them. It might be different if the mothers weren’t aware of what was going on, but they were. And that just isn’t right.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The tides, they are achanging, aren’t they Tammy?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353418,00.html
April 30th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
It is truly depressing to see how easily some folks are willing to toss the Constitution. It’s not the cause I quibble with, people, but the results. The law of the land depends heavily on precedents. And that is why I quoted the poem above.
April 30th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
smells like carl rovian disinformation. Let’s parse the verbiage:
“they’re investigating the possible sexual abuse of some young boys taken from a polygamist sect’s ranch, as well as broken bones among other children.”
Key words: investigating/possible
the are not saying that such things exist, just they they are investigating the possibility.
well hell pardner, i’m investigating the possiblity that the local baptists were having sex orgies over at the first baptist church of el dorado. sounds bad, but it is all b.-.
if there was compelling proof i suspect it would be waived in front of the public to protect the reputation of that fine TEXAS CPS system.
instead we get ambiguity and future plausible deniability.
yup, sounds like rovian dog meat for the dumb masses.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Tammy - I think the biggest issue regarding taking the children is not the ones who have possibly been sexually active earlier than what we might think is an appropriate age, but the younger children, who have absolutely no idea why they were suddenly torn from their mommy and made to go somewhere that is completely strange. This will have serious consequences for these children. The older ones can have things explained, even though they might not agree, but the youngest will be traumatized for a long time.
My oldest son had to live with my parents for a month and a half when he was 2 1/2 years old because my mother-in-law accused us of abusing him. I’m convinced that there are still lingering effects to this day because of this. There was no presumption of innocence. In fact, they as much as stated to our faces that there was a presumption of guilt, “because we were dealing with the welfare of the child”. The public defender advised us to accept a ruling that would have gone into our records permanently rather than actually trying to defend us. They never listened when we explained that he was overly active and detailed where each injury came from, and refused to take my father’s suggestion to observe him while he was staying at their house to verify that what we were saying was true. Fortunately, my parents helped us hire a very good lawyer who got the record expunged if we merely agreed that we would never use corporal punishment, and we accepted a 1-year term of monthly visits from a Social Worker to make sure nothing happened again.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Stacy, That “welfare of the child” crap is an end-run around the Constitution, and I have always wondered how many children are unnecessarily traumatized while some twit with good intentions is “protecting” them. It’s the guilt until proven innocent nonsense, and as you say, probably causes lingering problems. How could it not leave a kid with doubts about trusting the parents who are supposed to be his or her ultimate protection?
God save us from all “social workers”.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
When a 13 year old girl has the right to consent to an abortion without their parents’ permission or even knowledge, how can we say that they don’t have the right to choose to marry an older man?
If they don’t make that choice, they should be helped out. If they do make that choice they should be left alone.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
On the other hand, Tony, a 13 year old girl would be better off if she were not able to give legal consent to an abortion. After all, I don’t believe there is a state where she could give legal consent to sex. And I can guarantee that at some point in her life, she will suffer horrible regret for having had the abortion.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Hush now. I’ve moved on to the interesting numbers for the male/female ratio and their ages. The ones that were removed. If you look, you’ll see the older the boys got, the less of them that there were. What’s up with that?
May 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am
The older the boys got, the more of the girls had been taken by the older men. So why hang around?
May 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
On the other hand, Tony, a 13 year old girl would be better off if she were not able to give legal consent to an abortion.
Of course, Bill, but shouldn’t the state be consistant about when a girl is considered an adult with regard to life changing decisions?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Tony, of course the state should be consistent, but that would involve a miraculous change. There are still states, I believe, where a person must be 21 to vote, but can sign at 17, with parental consent, for the military. The government has never been consistent in age issues.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Well, states rights. That’s a good thing. But again it comes down to the state believing they are the purveyors of morality. I disagree. I had to sign a permission slip the other day for my 11 year old to attend a video the school was presenting about the changes they’re about to go through. I said no. And then he and I had a long talk about the birds and bees for about an hour. I mentioned God, and purity, and responsibility. I know the school did not include those things.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
[…] I actually have a lot of compassion towards the travesty that occurred in the Texas FLDS compound. Click here to read. […]