Posted on 05/06/2008 5:16:55 AM PDT by MrEdd
Census sheets found in a safe at a polygamous sect's ranch in west Texas both support and contradict the state's claim of a widespread culture of underage marriage.
Texas authorities used the sheets to convince a judge that there was a "pervasive pattern" among the FLDS of marrying underage girls to older men.
A review of the "Father's Family Information" sheets shows a handful of 16-year-old wives, 13 young monogamous couples and 24 men with multiple wives - including one man with 21 wives and 36 children.
A Texas Ranger testified about the census sheets during an April 17-18 court hearing before 51st District Judge Barbara Walther, who accepted the records as evidence despite objections from attorneys representing FLDS parents and children. The pages were recently released by the court. Sgt. Danny Crawford said the sheets were found April 5 in an office at the ranch, home to members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Texas authorities raided the ranch on April 3 after receiving reports of an abused 16-year-old, calls now being investigated as a possible hoax.
Authorities have said, however, they found evidence of a polygamous lifestyle and underage marriage practices at the ranch that supported removing 464 children.
The bishop's record sheets helped them make that case.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Obviously, a state legislature makes or changes the law and THEN prosecutes those people who continue such acts AFTER they have been made illegal. This is how all law is made and enforced. Otherwise, we would never be able to change or enforce any new laws! I think it is clear, however, that polygamy is already illegal in Texas and was when these people moved to Texas in 2003 as noted by the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott when he "hinted" at possible bigamy prosecutions of wives and mothers from the Eldorado polygamist commune (see article online Arizona Daily Star, April 17, 2008, http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/234802.php)
I don’t have my secret mormon decoder ring so I can tell which freeper names are associated with mormons. I have no idea if your statement is even true. As I’ve seen nobody defend this cult, my guess is your statement is false, but maybe you have seen a mormon posting and you’ve seen them actually defend the cult, and I just missed it somehow.
I’ve suggested that those who DO care might ask John if he would add some special identifier to freeper names so we could tell which ones are LDS.
Maybe a yellow star.
“None of those make sense in response to a question about what proof a parent needs to have that their child is theirs. So you need to take the conversation back to “are you some nut who doesn’t think the kids needed to be saved?””
NOW, have you had time to read the post after?
Well, it was only one quotation mark. There is not one at the end of that sentence. Actually, I goofed and didn’t paste in your comment I meant to respond to.
BUT, you are right. It could have been perceived that way, especially since I try to stick to a pattern to maintain clarity.
It wasn’t your comment.
I apologize for allowing it to even look that way.
I never claimed that no-one would answer my question. In fact, a few freepers actually HAD a conversation with me about the question.
I was responding to some who posted replies to my question, but rather than discussing my question, just turned back to the topic of the child abuse, like you did.
I have no interest in discussing whether the seizures were correct, we’ve had that discussion and there’s nothing further to gain. but some want to make EVERY question about it.
My original question was to a person who made a specific statement, and my question was about that statement, and generalized to remove it from the specifics.
You can keep trying to change the topic, and from time to time I fall into the trap, like for example when you say “refused to return ALL the children”, in fact she refused to return ANY of the children.
Including those who allegedly had official paperwork from another state that normally would be considered sufficient to show parentage.
As the judge did not make individual rulings, it’s hard to discuss whether in the specific cases involving records, she still claimed they needed DNA. But she seem to indicate EVERYBODY needed DNA, so that’s a hint.
As to your “END OF STORY”, that is the story. It appears that, rather than ruling individually, she used the “we don’t know the parents” as an excuse, giving her a few weeks breathing room while she waited for the DNA.
The DNA makes sense if you have no evidence of who the kid’s parents are, and a lot of people argued that there were no records, but now we see some allegedly HAVE official records.
But rather than get into endless arguments with people who have no interest in getting to the bottom of anything except “the children were abused”, I am studiously TRYING to avoid discussing that, and instead simply wondered what others would do to prove their parentage.
And some have discussed that with me, and we all had a pleasant time.
Again, off topic.
So I guess you are not a Mormon?
People that respond to the same post several times making it difficult to respond to all questions succinctly creating many sub threads of a sub thread.
Easier to argue questions not raised for which the answers are easily known, then discuss the topic.
“My statement was about how often, no matter what issue we attempt to discuss, the responses always go back to “the children were abused”. I realise for some people, that’s all they care about. but those people could simply ignore questions that are not about what they are interested in.”
ONLY was a bad choice of words. Forgive me.
MOSTLY, would be better.
What is the purpose of the question? No, I don’t have the yellow star nor will have to wear one, but nevertheless I don’t get the purpose.
choses?
What a dork I iz.
Chooses.
I have never said any such thing, nor have I argued they SHOULD. The implication of the question is that something I've said in this conversation brings the answer to your question into some doubt. Or else you wouldn't have to ask the question.
The question itself has a clear connotation that I am someone who might not see that the kids need to be saved. While you may not have used the term "some nut", I like every post to try to broaden it's scope of application, and there are many who do ask questions that have no basis in reason to imply that those they question are nutcases.
If I read the "post after", I'll respond to it there.
When I first saw it, I presumed you were quoting me, and were asking why I said that.
Then I read it and thought, I didn’t say that, did I? So I checked, and found I hadn’t, but it looked similar, so I made my response, but as I did, it came to mind that you may have made a simple typographical error, so I mentioned that possibility, but didn’t go back to the beginning to tone down the initial statement.
Your pattern is known to me, although frankly I think you often put lines in to separate things, and that could have tipped me off.
I hope you or keeping track, because when this if over, I want to know is I win they Award for the most DEBILITATED POSTER, based on ponts.
If not, If want be because eye didn’t try.
If you follow the thread, you might understand. I opined that many of the FLDS defenders were Mormon. He asked “How do you know who is Mormon?”. So I asked if he was Mormon. If he said “no”, it would kinda blow my theory. If he said “yes”, it would seem to back my theory. If he said nothing, it would say something entirely different
OK. Good guess.
If only we had those yellow stars, I wouldn’t have to worry about being mistaken for one of those people.
And I think we have gotten way off the subject, and would do better to just start over.
You can even blame me for it all. I’m at least half of the problem.
I’m going to get some lunch.
I’ll be back (the rest of the crowd yells “THANKS FOR THE WARNING”)
You ask the first question, or questions, I’ll do my best to respond.
Thanks
I didn’t guess.
I find it odd because the FLDS is not kind to the LDS church. They are downright hostile to your church.
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.