Posted on 12/23/2008 12:41:30 PM PST by wolfcreek
“children were malnourished or untreated for illnesses or left unattended by parents”
As for the young girls involved, how about *next in line*.
You think those other kids didn’t know what was happening?
Nothing makes me more upset than *the out of touch Newbie*.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2138247/posts
I believe there are 12 indicted individuals, FYI.
The abuse was prepping the next generation for a new crop of child brides in 10 years or so.
God help them, I hope He’s more merciful than I feel toward the daughter swaps perpetrated by the mothers and fathers of “only a dozen” little girls.
research is your friend. Men have been arraigned, charged, and arrested, along with at least one mother for daughter-swapping they call a “wedding.”
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=flds&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n
Retread more than likely.
And I agree that having sex with children constitutes child abuse. Those who engaged in it, and the parents who permitted it, deserve to be punished.
But the agency only alleges 12 instances of actual child abuse. The remaining instances of what it terms "neglect" involves allegations that other children were around and aware of the actual abuse. That's very different than the commonly-used meaning of "child neglect".
Instead of conflating "abuse" and "neglect" into one common issue, when less than 5% of the 280 cases consisted of sexual abuse, the agency could have easily separated out the charges and clarified that the "neglect" portion was not physical but rather "bad parenting". The agency's failure to do so makes its ulterior motive (trying to justify its actions which a court struck down) pretty obvious.
If we are going to tear down the government entity who we've entrusted this responsibility, we need to ask ourselves a troubling question. Who will look out for the welfare of those kids if not for them?
I wonder if this will end like the Davidian’s “child abuse” allegations. 80+ burnt to death parishioners and prosecution court case after court case being tossed out as baseless.
Since the initial raid indicted no firearm or explosive stashes, it won’t be necessary for the FEDERAL AGENCY BATF to be involved. (in case you mistakenly thought the State of Texas had anything to do with Waco)
“Only 12”? Is that not enough for you?
That’s one in four of the girls in those families. How many babies did the report say these girls have had - 7?
Now, you’ve got 19 kids. When do you reach your threshhold?
The “fathers” all got together every so often and traded their 12 and 13 years around. That’s not really very healthy for their siblings. Add in our knowledge that the entire community practiced deception as to who was parent to whom, last names varied, and “fathers” and brothers occasionally got kicked out, and “families” were reassigned to new “fathers.”
Is that ALL??
Mine were 'abused and neglected' all the time.
(To hear THEM tell it! ;^)
Sounds like SLC's kingdom - we ain't buyin' it either.
PP is as protected in society as LDS secret ceremonies are protected on FR.
If you're a pro ball player - you needn't bother with the pesky marriage license...
2 Nephi 3:18 And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.
Joseph Smith Translation Gen. 50: 31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins of Judah, shall grow together
Thanks to your pointing this out, my “1965” typo has been corrected to “1865”.
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.