Posted on 04/25/2008 2:27:00 PM PDT by JRochelle
The fLDS had excellent "tutors" in inheriting this mindset from their spiritual and family ancestors--the mainstream Mormons.
B. Carmon Hardy, in his book, A Solemn Covenant, makes it QUITE CLEAR that many, many 19th century LDS Mormons thought & taught that polygamy was sexually superior to monogamy precisely because Mormons tied sexual debauchery to monogamy--associating it with the plagues of prostitution, adultery, etc. (They conveyed that polygamy "solved" the problem of men having to pursue sex outside of marriage).
Totally hypocritical on the part of Mormons. Here, a 21st century Mormon raves about the ethical traits of a Christian, monogamous marriage... yet if monogamy is so great, why were LDS 19th-century LDS apologetics full of the "evils" of monogamy? [At a stake conference in northern Utah in the summer of 1900, LDS Apostle Matthias F. Cowley spoke on plural marriage and referred to the 'evils of monogamy.' (A Solemn Covenant, p. 189, original source was Clawson Diaries, Aug. 25, 1900)]
LDS apostle Orson Pratt urged the Saints to do all they could to purge from their own and their children's memories knowledge of Christian marital tradition. ("Celestial Marriage," Seer 1 Nov. 1853, p. 173. Similar comments in JoD vol. 12, p. 92, 1867.)
Besides, if 19th century LDS polygamy had "nothing to do with sexual debauchery," why did Benjamin F. Johnson recall that Joseph Smith taught him that plural marriage was the only means by which prostitution could be eliminated. (A Solemn Covenant, p. 16)
So--not from a personal perspective necessarily (between couples) but from a Joseph Smith policy perspective--Johnson's remembrance shows that a true purpose of plurality (not the only one) was in effect to have an "in-house" prostitute. How base is that for 19th LDS to have embraced that vantage point? Hardy cited other LDS who thought that mass polygamy would "eliminate sexual wickedness" and LDS general authority/legislator, William Gibson, who after-the-fact claimed to have voted against the Manifesto, called it "the best antidote to sexual sin." (A Solemn Covenant, p. 145, citing William Gibson, who was quoted in "Polygamous Issues," DN, March 28, 1896.)
"The need for prostitution...was seized on by Mormons as evidence that monogamy was manifestly an incorrect system of marriage...From the 1850s until the end of the century, Mormon writers and speakers struck at what they considered their detractors' hypocrisy for criticizing Mormon marriage when, as the First Presidency affirmed in 1886, adultery and prostitution were the consequences of the monogamic arrangement.... (A Solemn Covenant, p. 89, citing "An Epistle of the First Presidency..." March 1886, Messages 3:68...Hardy cites in the same footnote about 8 other sources from Heber C. Kimball to Brigham Young to John Taylor to George Q. Cannon to apostle Erasmus Snow).
So there ya go! The embracing of polygamy naturally led to an elitist position where polygamists looked down upon, frowned upon, and even openly dismissed or criticized "monogamy!" When you have an LDS "prophet" in 1886 claiming that adultery and prostitution were the consequences of monogamy, that's a major, major problem!!! about it so base? Hardy devotes a full chapter to how LDS regarded it as sexually superior--not for erotic or orgy reasons--but for what they regarded was the "opposite"--associating prostitution and the resulting ill-health with monogamy, etc.
I misunderstood your post, and I apologize. I try to dress modestly and feel it is feminine. As for visiting a lesbian bar, I’ll pass. I’ll take your word for it.
How do you know Texas forcibly took the children from their parents? The great majority of the parents have refused to identify themselves or their own children — and the children haven’t been able or willing to identify their parents either. There has not been a single case reported of an adult who was living in the compound identifying her or himself, giving a full name and age, and identifying specific children by name and age, and formally petitioning the court to give their children back to them. Not one. There was one man who had previously been kicked out of the group who came from Arizona, submitted to DNA testing, and identified which children he was claiming as his own — he’s likely to eventually get his children, but he didn’t have them when they were living at the ranch compound.
A lot of these children were legally speaking kidnapping victims while living at the ranch, since they were sent there on orders of the “prophet” who has already kicked many of the fathers out of the cult and off the cult’s properties, and prevented them from having any contact with their children. The “reassigned” women are clearly not in a position to say “no”, when the “prophet” announces that several of her children are being shipped off to “Zion”.
This cult has a long and well-documented history of severe physical abuse of children of all ages and both sexes — not just sexual abuse of adolescent girls. That, and the impossibility of identifying their actual parents, makes it necessary for the state to remove all of them. Parents who are able and willing to identify themselves and their children, and submit to DNA testing to prove their claim, will have a chance to present their case for being fit parents. Don’t hold your breath for more than a handful of fathers to be willing to do this.
What has happened now is that a significant number of the adult women from the compound have elected to stay in a women’s shelter rather than go back to the ranch. When they are matched to specific children by DNA testing, the court and CPS have indicated that there will be some provision for visitation. Hopefully, by virtue of spending some time mingling with people outside the cult, most of these women will realize that they’ve been subjected to extensive brainwashing and abuse, and will decide not to go back. Women who make that choice are very likely to get custody of children, with the end result being that a lot of women and children who were being held captive by lies and threats and physical abuse will be free. Some of us don’t see that as a bad outcome.
I recommend reading the responses and coming up with something new, but hey! it’s a free country.
Bingo!!!
“As for visiting a lesbian bar, I’ll pass. I’ll take your word for it.”
As a guy I will tell you that it is very difficult to pick up women there, they can be very stubborn about that kind of thing.
Given the history of this cult, realistically most of the minors would no longer be in the state of Texas, and a good number would be in Canada.
Mainstream Mormonism taught us plenty about this in its practice of it in the late 19th century and early 20th century...and the progenitor results, the fLDS learned their lessons well from their tutors.
(1) Large families are great, but they went beyond this to a "breeding" mentality: At a stake conference, LDS leader Cannon of the First Presidency said: The people of the world do not believe in breeding, but we do.<./u> So the people of the world will die out and we will fill the whole earth. I admit those raising children by plural wives are not complying with man-made laws, but in the sight of God they are not sinning, as there is no sin in it. (George Q. Cannon, Sanpete Stake conference, Sept., 1899. Smoot Investigation, Vol. 1, p. 9.) [BTW, fLDS still cite this LDS source]
(2) It bred wifely jealousy and fueled baby-conception competitions similar to Genesis 30.
(3) It engendered an attitude that polygamy was superior to monogamy and that it was necessary to attain the highest degree of heaven.
(4) It led to thousands of incidents in lifestyle, word, and deed filled with duplicity--of people "lying for the Lord" to cover it up.
(5) Some Mormon leaders, says B. Carmon Hardy-- leaders like Democrat Brigham Roberts who was elected to Congress by Utah voters--linked polygamy with eugenics and creating a "superrace."
(6) Underage girls were exploited into coerced marriages by mainstream Mormonism for over 70 years.
(7) Marriages were "contracted between the nearest of relatives," said Fanny Stenhouse, an LDS plural wife of the 19th century.
(8) "Joseph E. Robinson recalled that President Lorenzo Snow told him that he had father a child in his eighty-eighth year." (source B. Carmon Hardy, Solemn Covenant, p. 93) When men are bearing children that old in an era not resembling early Old Testament ages, they are likely assuring their child will grow up most of his or her years minus that father's presence.
(9) The people began to consider themselves "above the law." Brigham Young said: "If I had forty wives in the United States, they did not know it, and could not substantiate it, neither did I ask any lawyer, judge, or magistrate for them. I live above the law, and so do this people" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p.361).
(10) Plural wives like Margaret Geddes had husbands who denied being married to them, cutting them out of inheritance rights for children. (Geddes sued and won)
Very good point.
But it is good these women have decided to move out.
But it is good these women have decided to move out.
Good point. (And that's tied in to coerce women to have as many babies as possible...the "breeding" angle)
…single mothers, who have a child without any ceremony from a single sperm donor…
You imply that while ghetto…single mothers” lack a ceremony, but at least polygamy offers a ceremonial covering. What? You think a mock “ceremony” that introduces a 13, 14, or 15 yo to the bed of an already married 50 yo man = “marriage?” (are you that discernment sick?) Can you spell religiously sanctioned p-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-i-a?
Absolutely to the point and 1000% correct.
Now on to my response.
CPS plays "defense." (child removal) based upon if there is a credible report of a rape that could be repeated. (If CPS waited til law enforcement folks finished their investigation, there'd be a whole lot of minors with intensified, escalated cases of abuse).
So, rule of law, burden of proof, the US Constitution, the right to face an accuser and punishment are postponed until a jury can hear the case? The children and families are under the burden of 'proving their innocence' in order to get their children back. This is not the way our Constitution was set up.
We do not imprison suspects, merely because they are suspects. We allow them to post 'bail' and release them. Also, in the case of children, each child is individually assessed to see if they are 'at risk'. Not in this case. All 400+ children were equally categorized as 'at risk' to be married under the state allowe age (boys and girls, as well as children under 5 years of age). Families were forcibly separated and continue to be separated. Mothers are not allowed to visit their children, this determination was made to apply AS A GROUP, not on a case-by-case basis.
We do not arrest and incarcerate people because they 'may be at risk' to commit murder, rape, robbery, drunk driving, selling drugs, or any other offense. I question the integrity and validity of the 'preemptive' strike as used by CPS.
Now instead of zeroing in on underaged girls being exploited for statutory rape, you want authorities to turn their attention to ”unlimited women out of wedlock” out there! (Boy, that’s priorities for ya with limited resources!)
Names and source please. We have a bogus phone call that served as the justification for this whole mess. Law enforcement was as competent as Dan Rather on this one. Before you engage, one would assume that some work is done to see if this cause is even legitimate. So far, we have a woman 'on the run' for making fake phone calls.
You think a mock “ceremony” that introduces a 13, 14, or 15 yo to the bed of an already married 50 yo man = “marriage?” (are you that discernment sick?) Can you spell religiously sanctioned p-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-i-a?
Again, do you have specific names and resources? I have heard numerous threads make this allegation; but so far have not found a single article stating this. If it is true, then the action is simple. Prosecute the man for statuatory rape. However, in the (bogus)case of the 16 year old wife, this is the legal age of consent of many states. If I am married in Washington DC, Utah, Montana, Colorado or any other recognized state, by the laws of that state - them I am also married in Texas.
My statement is that people seem awfully hung up on polygamy, but are hypocritical when they turn a blind eye to the same (selfish, immoral, but accepted) practice where a man impregnates any number of women and skips out. At least with polygamy you have a father figure who accepts (some) responsibility for his children. The logic fits.
If you think polygamy has its virtues, then it might be wise to try to get the laws changed. As it is, it is a felony in all 50 states, but you could start with Texas.
Oh, and if you are going to try to get the polygamy laws changed, I suggest you not use the FLDS example as the ideal. Those people don't know or won't say who is married to whom, and which children belong to which union, if there is one.
Again, same old argument, which of course you are free to make.
I read the news. Yes, the parents are refusing to identify themselves; but consider. I break into your home. I take your possessions and children and then I demand you to tell me your family tree. Wouldn't you do the same? Bear in mind, this whole mess is because of a PRANK phone call.
This cult has a long and well-documented history of severe physical abuse of children of all ages and both sexes
Source please.
CPS officials have conceded there is no evidence the youngest children were abused, and about 130 of the children are under 5. Teenage boys were not physically or sexually abused either, according to evidence presented in a custody hearing earlier last week, but more than two dozen teenage boys are also in state custody, now staying at a boys' ranch that might typically house troubled or abandoned teens.
Source
OK, let's be intellectually honest, OK? I break into your home and steal your kids. The ONLY way you can get your kids back is to do exactly what the gov't of Texas wants you to do. Do you have any doubt that these women weren't told "If you ever want to see your children again, you had better leave your home, go to a place of our choosing, and beg". What would you expect?
You apparently did not read what I wrote. I am not defending polygamy, not one bit. Besides, you know the down-side to multiple wives? Multiple mother-in-laws.
My point is that if people want to get their panties in a bundle over polygamy; then they should be equally critical of unwed mothers. If it's wrong for a man to marry multiple women and father children with all of them; then shouldn't it be equally reprehensible for an un-married man to father multiple children with multiple women? At least the polygamist father assumes responsibility for his children.
As for the FLDS not communicating and cooperating with CPS and the police - I believe the term is 'Passive resistance'. Consider, 400+ children taken by the Texas authorities based upon a prank phone call- and have you heard of any gun play? Any violence on the part of the FLDS against the authorities? No, all they are doing is using the legal resources they have, and refusing to help the authorities in any way. Can't say that I would be as restrained as these folk have been.
The "cult sympathizers" don't. So far none of them have shown up with credentials saying we should pay any attention to them.
There’s a nest of polygamy (”polygyny”)advocates at the Vox Day blog.http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/04/we-cant-count-but-trust-us.html Here’s the web pages I was advised to read before presuming to comment http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/pchristian.htm
http://chatcog.org/polygamy/ar06.html
Divorce and polygamy are great, according to these guys.
You may want to take a look at Drudge, before you go shooting off like that. I'll save you some effort, and give you the link for you. Being informed is always a good thing, right?
And before you go around placing labels on people, you may want to consider something. Just because I (and others) are critical of the way Texas is handling things, does not mean that I support the FLDS group. I do not, I have not, and I frankly do not see a time where I will. However, what Texas or any other state does to these people, they can do us. If the state tramples upon the basic rights of pornographers, then we either speak up and make the state back off - or we allow the state to come after us when they decide that we too, need to be corralled up and sent to re-education camps.
Personally, I think the state of Texas is going to wind up making a historically large contribution to the FLDS coffers in the very near future. I would think the sum to be upwards of $400 Million to $1 Billion. Again, read the article. We have a issue called 'due process'; and that has been totally neglected.
Historically speaking, the Supreme Court consistently supported the right for parents to have children. In essence, the state of Texas has decided that if you are FLDS, you may not have children. And that is wrong, I refuse to cede that right over to any state or government authority.
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.