Posted on 04/25/2008 2:27:00 PM PDT by JRochelle
The raid this month on a polygamist sect's Texas ranch left more than 400 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in state custody.
Under any circumstances, children have trouble adjusting to a world in which their parents suddenly are gone. But in this case, these children likely will be put in an outside world that they have been raised to see as evil.
To better understand their plight, The Washington Times spoke with three former members of the FLDS as well as Rowenna Erickson, a founding member of Tapestry Against Polygamy (Polygamy.org).
The Utah-based organization supports children and vulnerable adults seeking to leave the polygamous lifestyle.
"Polygamy is one big male excuse" for sex, Mrs. Erickson told The Times, using graphic language.
She grew up in the Latter-day Church of Christ, a polygamous Mormon sect also known as the Kingston family. At age 20, she became the second wife of her older sister's husband; the couple bore eight children together.
"My children and I lived in dire poverty in a two-and-a-half bedroom house," Mrs. Erickson said.
Her husband lived separately from the family, and she was prohibited from disclosing their true relationship to others — including to the couple's own children — so as not to raise the suspicion of the civil authorities.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks for your post.
Hodar, are you still going to claim ignorance?
Already posted here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2006719/posts
Yes, ONLY if they misquote it, take it out of context or totally ignore what else the bible says about the subject. But 1Cor 6 is really sssstttttrrrrreeeetttcccchiiiing it.
The men are cowards who will not name their children or claim the ‘wives” they breed with in that big white building. It’s enough to bring me to ask the Lord to deal with them in His justice. (Except that I’m grateful that He doesn’t give me the justice I deserve.)
The women are banned from doing many things that would aid in their attractiveness.
Primping is considered vain -and the women are to be obedient to the various bans on how they can manage their appearance (right down to a ban on the color red).
If the men are unhappy with the looks of their women, they could always reconsider their ban on the restrictive underwear (that hides their natural curves) and the ban on makeup and hairstyling.
Bait? Smells to me-—
“Wimmen BAAADDDD! Men GOOOODD!”
Yep.
“Prejudicial? What is that? Bait?”
please do not read too much into that word..I was referring to the many responces I have read such as “ I think all the men should get life for their crimes”.....and “these guys are all pedofiles”...rightly some are pedofiles and rightly some probably deserve life in the clink but we must not condemn everyone until the truth is out
I get little bit of what you are saying......but what I don’t get it is what are these men getting out of this? This can’t be fun or exciting for them so what’s the deal? Kids, as someone pointed out above? I don’t know how else to describe this.
No, the article says: "That led officials to bump the number of children in Texas custody to 462 because they believe another 25 mothers from the compound are under 18." You effectly doubled the number - let's stick to the facts, ok? Now, were these women raped? No reports of rape have been made, are any of the (adult) 18 yr old women filing a complaint? This is that little thing we call 'due process'. Or, is someone taking it upon themselves to file a complaint on behalf of these women because this person doesn't like the way they live?
From the article on the 14 yr. old we have this:
A children's home in Austin will get about 15 young kids, lawyers say. And around 10 pregnant girls – including a 14-year-old – will go to a group home in San Antonio.
Nail the father to the wall, throw the book at him and show no mercy. But, give him his day in court.
Is this grounds to have every child taken away? No. If a 14 year old is sexually abused in your church, do you think the CPS has the responsibility to take every child, from every congregation member? I think any sane person would say 'No'. If there is a trend, then we investigate on a case-by-case basis. We do not assume the worst, and then proceed to take 432 children away from their families.
From your first article, we have this gem
Some adult mothers will still be separated from their children — those with children over 2 years old.
No charges, no evidence, no allegation that any abuse of 2 year olds have been presented. The state has all but declared that the FLDS are prohibited from having children. When the trials begin, I predict that Texas taxpayers will be making a several hundred million dollar donation to the FLDS church.
The men have been brainwashed too - and they follow the orders of their “prophet”.
Some men probably benefit sexually when they get to take on a younger firmer pretty young thing after their first and second wives have gotten older and born many children.
The guys don’t have to deal with the kids so much as the women are forced to deal with each other and manage the kids between themselves.
But most of all - they are following the lifestyle and religious teachings of the founder of their religion...Joseph Smith, and also of his successor, Brigham Young.
The very fact that every tiny aspect of the women's appearance is dictated shows extreme control issues, just this side of a BDSM club.
IOW,
the arousal comes from the control and submission, not from the physical attractiveness. In fact, the more the women's spirit and beauty is broken, the more power the men have.
I bet the opposite.
“... but we must not condemn everyone until the truth is out”
That could be misinterpreted. :D
Thanks.....that made some sense.
Oh, believe me; I know about the Lost Boys. Boys barely mature that are tossed out to fend for themselves. Some because they drank and talked to girls, others because there was a limit on available young girls.
I am no friend of this cult. I find them, and their practices deplorable. I pity those caught in their grasp.
That said, I am not flexible when it comes to the law. If we decide to bypass basic rights when it comes to this group; then we have no claim to those same rights when it's our turn. I want the pedophiles nailed, as much as anyone else. Maybe even more than anyone else - I'm a grandfather and I deplore the abuse. But I am even more offended by the utter lack of consideration given to our basic God-given rights. Governments do not grant rights, they are given by Almighty God. Governments can only take rights away. It wold appear that the Government in Texas has decided that the God-given right to parenthood needs to be removed from the FLDS group. That's why I'm all hacked off about his. If they can do this to the FLDS, they can do it to us any time they please, and our constitution is little more than a scrap of paper.
That's been repeated ad nauseum. Must be a new talking point.
What about the God given rights of the women and children who’ve been stripped of their freedoms via this sect? Slavery is wrong, not matter what nice label you slap on it.
Personally, I forsee this as the beginning of the end of the FLDS sects.
No, prejudicial means that you want to ignore the rule of law, bypass the trial because you have already decided that they are guilty. Any defense is ignored. One pseudo-trial, and everyone gets tried at the same time. The laws that protect the accused are waived, you don't care what rights are trampled - as long as you can exact some vengeance, you are happy. It seems to be a fairly accurate assessment.
Men, on the other hand, tend to want the rule of law to prevail. Follow the law, and follow it exactly. Treat these people like you would anyone else, no special considerations, no special treatment. Everyone gets their day in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.