Posted on 01/19/2011 5:37:42 AM PST by Colofornian
Water torture of babies is one way some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day instil fear of authority, a former member testified Wednesday.
"It's quite common," Carolyn Blackmore Jessop told the constitutional reference case to determine whether Canada's polygamy law is valid. "They spank the baby and when it cries, they hold the baby face up under the tap with running water. When they stop crying, they spank it again and the cycle is repeated until they are exhausted."
It's typically done by fathers and it's called "breaking in," she said.
Ms. Jessop, who is from Arizona, testified about the practice during her testimony in B.C. Supreme Court.
Outside the courthouse, Ms. Jessop said water torture is common enough that there doesn't seem any shame attached to the practice.
In her cousin's baby book, there is a handwritten note by her mother noting that when her daughter was 18 months old, she was becoming quite a handful and, as a result, was being held under the tap on a regular basis.
SNIP
"Polygamy is not pretty to look at. It is nice that it is tucked away in a dark corner where nobody has to see its realities because it's creepy," she told Chief Justice Robert Bauman, adding that her biggest concern is that polygamy and all of its consequent abuses are ignored by the courts and law enforcement.
SNIP
...Her mother's family have been polygamists since Joseph Smith had his revelation about plural marriage in the mid-1800s.
Ms. Jessop was 18 when the prophet determined that she would become 50-year-old Merril Jessop's fourth wife...
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalpost.com ...
From the article: "Polygamy is not pretty to look at. It is nice that it is tucked away in a dark corner where nobody has to see its realities because it's creepy," she told Chief Justice Robert Bauman, adding that her biggest concern is that polygamy and all of its consequent abuses are ignored by the courts and law enforcement...Her mother's family have been polygamists since Joseph Smith had his revelation about plural marriage in the mid-1800s.
Ah, more "fruit" of Joseph Smith...
Ol' Joe was quite the rake. Couching whatever depravity
he fancied in biblical language worked out well for him.
"Thou shalt hitteth it"
The fruit of Satan.
Pure evil. I makes my spit weep.
All of these freaks need to be slowly tortured and then executed.
Anybody wanting to know, in detail about the F.L.D.S., the true followers of J. Smith, should get the book, “Escape” by Carolyn Jessop.
Probably available in your local library.
A real modern day Juniper Creek (Big Love) cult.
So sad for the women and children who are caught up in this...
Point is, this wacko sect is expelled from the Mormon's
BTTT
Breaking in = drowning or near drowning. Why in the world would someone do this? I guess to teach the child that crying does not get a response. Friends of ours have an adopted Chinese daughter who did not cry for at least 18 months once she came home to the U.S. Why? She learned from infancy that no one comes. Even when she fell outside and skinned her little knee to a total bloody mess... NO TEARS.
You got it backwards. The F.L.D.S. is the true church of Joseph Smith and follow his teachings much more closely than does the L.D.S.
The L.D.S. is the break away church, even though it has more members.
Reality point is that just about all of fLDS members have never been members of the Salt Lake City-based sect. Therefore, if they've never been members, how can you accuse the individuals of having been expelled?
You make it sound like these members have been ex-communicated. Sorry. They haven't been!
Westboro Baptist Church, “christian,” isn't it? I mean, they call themselves "Baptist," after all.
Your's is a poor comparison was for at least 2 reasons...
(1) The most important consideration is when you look at the defining characteristic of these false "churches":
For the fLDS, it's polygamy.
And what supposed Mormon "scripture" & doctrine backs that up? (Doctrine & Covenants 132 -- NEVER rescinded or changed or deleted by the mainstream Mormons...it exists like an "old law" still "on the books"...one where the "authorities" promise it will return...Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie says polygamy will return to earth when the mainstream Mormon "jesus" returns...Source: McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine)
Now compare Phelps' Westboro.
What defining characteristic is there for this group?
For the Phelps, it's picketing.
Is that mainline Christian "Scripture?" (Answer: NO!)
(2) Secondly the Phelps is better defined as one extended family -- versus a "church." (That's about all its "church" is made up of).
(3) Besides, what do you do with the Mormon claim that Mormons = "Christians"? Is it OK for mainstream Mormons to draw boundaries between who is "Mormon" and who isn't? But then they frown upon Christians not defining "Mormons" as Christians? (Is that inconsistent?)
I also take the time to mention Canadian mainstream Mormon FReeper Edward Watson. Not only does Watson deem the fLDS as Mormon, but he also told me in 2008, "Of course, they're Christian..."
So a fundamentalist Mormon-is a Mormon-is a Christian? (Well, I'm not the one who says "no boundaries exist" for the fLDS or other sociologically outlandish groups like Westboro Baptist).
Got it.
So why are the media trying to meld them together?
I mean, after all, they are completely separate.
Anti-Mormonism is discrimination, persecution, hostility or prejudice directed at members of the Latter Day Saint movement, particularly The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The term is often used by Latter Day Saints to describe persons or literature that are critical of their adherents, their institutions, or beliefs.
Opposition to Mormonism began before the first Latter Day Saint church was established in 1830 and continues to the present day. The most vocal and strident opposition occurred during the 19th century, particularly during the Utah War of the 1850s, and in the second half of the century when the practice of polygamy in Utah was widely considered by the U.S. Republican Party as one of the “twin relics of barbarism” along with slavery.[1]
Modern-day opposition generally takes the form of websites purporting to expose the “truth” about Mormonism and non-violent protest at large Latter-day Saint gatherings such as the church’s semi-annual General Conference, outside of Latter-day Saint pageants, or at events surrounding the construction of new LDS temples. Opponents generally allege that the church’s claims to divinity are false, or that it is non-Christian, or that it is a religion based on fraud or deceit on the part of its past and present leaders.
The term “anti-Mormon” first appears in the historical record in 1833 by the Louisville (Kentucky) Daily Herald in an article, “The Mormons and the Anti-Mormons”. (That article was also the first to label believers in the Book of Mormon as “Mormons.)[2] In 1841, it was revealed that an Anti-Mormon Almanac would be published. On August 16 of that year, the Latter Day Saint Times and Seasons reported the Mormons’ confidence that although the Anti-Mormon Almanac was designed by “Satan and his emissaries” to flood the world with “lies and evil reports”, still “we are assured that in the providence of God they will ultimately tend to the glory of God—the spread of truth and the good of the church”.[3]
The anti-Mormon newspaper certainly wasn’t the first of its kind; Mormonism had been criticized strongly by dozens of publications since its inception, most notably by Eber D. Howe’s book Mormonism Unvailed (1834). The Saints initially labeled such publications “anti-Christian”,[4] but the publication of the Almanac and the subsequent formation of an “Anti-Mormon Party” in Illinois heralded a shift in terminology. “Anti-Mormon” became, on the lips of the church’s critics, a proud and politically charged self-designation.[5]
Today, the term is primarily used as a descriptor for persons and publications that oppose LDS Church, although its precise scope has been the subject of some debate. It is used by some to describe anything perceived as critical of the LDS Church,[6] whereas others reserve it for critical persons or publications who enlist dishonest or inflammatory rhetoric.[7]
Siding with the latter, less-inclusive understanding of the term, Latter-day Saint scholar William O. Nelson suggests in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that the term includes “any hostile or polemic opposition to Mormonism or to the Latter-day Saints, such as maligning the founding prophet, his successors, or the doctrines or practices of the Church. Though sometimes well intended, anti-Mormon publications have often taken the form of invective, falsehood, demeaning caricature, prejudice, and legal harassment, leading to both verbal and physical assault.”[8]
Many of those who have been labeled “anti-Mormon” object to the designation, arguing that the term implies that disagreement or criticism of Mormonism stems from some inherent “anti-Mormon” prejudice, rather than being part of a legitimate factual or religious debate. Eric Johnson, for example, makes a distinction between “personal animosity and intellectual dialogue”. Johnson insists that he is motivated by “love and compassion for Mormons”, and that while he “[might] plead guilty to being against Mormonism”, he finds the suggestion that he is anti-Mormon “both offensive and inaccurate.”[9] Stephen Cannon elaborates,
It is also helpful to know that Mormons are a group of people united around a belief system. Therefore, to be “anti-Mormon” is to be against people. Christians who desire to communicate the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Mormons are never to come against people of any stripe. Yes, evangelical Christians do have strong disagreements with Mormonism, but the argument is with a belief system and not a people. The LDS people are no better or no worse than any other group of people. Any dispute is to be a disagreement with the “ism”, not the “Mormon”.[10]
James White, meanwhile, rejects the term because of a lack of reciprocal terminology. He wrote to one LDS apologist, “If you will identify yourself as an anti-Baptist, I’ll let you call me an anti-Mormon.”[11]
Even some members of the church who write negatively about it, especially those who call into question its divine nature, have had their writings labeled anti-Mormon. Members critical of the church tend to get disfellowshipped or excommunicated, making active members less likely to approach their work (cf. the September Six, Grant Palmer, Thomas W. Murphy, etc.). Ex-Mormons who write about the church are likewise frequently labeled anti-Mormon, even when their writings are not inflammatory in nature.[12] The debate on who is “anti-Mormon” frequently arises in Mormon discussions of authors and sources. One view suggests, “It’s just another label used to draw the line in the sand and separate us and them.” Another view suggests, “Everyone is anti- when they’re not pro-.”[13]
Stephen Cannon has argued that use of the label is a “campaign by Latter-day Saints to disavow the facts presented by simply labeling the source as ‘anti-Mormon’”.[14] Critics of the term also claim that the LDS Church frames the context of persecution in order to cultivate a persecution complex,[15] or that Mormon authors promote the ideal of a promised heavenly reward for enduring persecution for one’s beliefs.[16]
Mormons often respond to these accusations by questioning whether critics like Johnson and Cannon really have Mormons’ best interests at heart. For Brigham Young University’s 100 Hour Board, the “anti-Mormon” label serves the purpose of warning Latter-day Saints away from individuals who espouse “hatred and bigotry”. It is better, says the Board, for a confused Saint to “talk to someone... that (1) has your best interests at heart, and (2) actually understands what the Church teaches.”[17]
Those individuals and groups who challenge Mormonism, particularly those who approach the challenge from an evangelical Christian perspective, would generally sustain that they do, in fact, have the best interest of the Mormon at heart;[18] and for the most part can legitimately claim to understand what the church teaches, since many challengers of Mormonism come from an LDS background. In addition, they often declare that highly-charged words such as “hatred” and “bigotry” are employed to an excessive degree to describe any challenge to a truth claim, and often cite this reactionary response as part of the so-called Mormon “persecution complex.”
“As for the persecution complex,” writes Jeff Lindsay, “some of us may make too big a deal of our past and of current misunderstandings”. “There has been a difference in the way Mormons have been treated in the past. There has been genuine persecution, though we are grateful in these days that overt violence against us has generally ceased. We are grateful for this time of increased understanding and civility, and hope that it will last. But rhetoric against Latter-day Saints has hardly died down, and real anti-Mormons - often professional ones - work hard to stir up anger. I urge all of us to resist such religious bigotry. It is not inspired of God.”[19] Many traditional Christians,[who?] however, further take exception to the so-called “persecution complex” within Mormonism in light of statistics that an estimated 170,000 traditional Christians worldwide are martyred for their faith each year,[20] a figure that far exceeds, even on a per-capita basis, reports of Mormon martyrdom by orders of magnitude.
They used to say this sort of thing about the Branch Davidians too... you know, the David Koresh cult in Waco. I never knew if it was true or if they did it to justify going in.
OK, so water torture by the fLDS is deemed by you as "wacko" -- what do you make of this article hot off of the Salt Lake Trib about this mainstream Mormon murderer-Mom being released from jail?
Her crime? She literally internally drowned a 4-year-old adopted girl 'cause the girl sipped one of her sibling's drinks (she made her drink so much that it killed her):
Mother who killed girl by water intoxication seeks parole [LDS - Open]
[Maybe we can get Bean Counter to go to that thread as well as post his "anti-Mormon persecution" post...that way he winds up defending both fLDS and LDS water torturers alike!]
From personal experience, as a young child living in Oregon, I had a brother who was treated like this by a foster/step father. So — it doesn’t only happen in Canada. It’s like waterboarding babies and young children.
Point is, this wacko sect is expelled from the Mormon's
To get an answer to your question:
So why are the media trying to meld them together?
You'd have to ask the Mormon folk at the "Salt Lake Tribune".
Another Christians acting like Muslims thread..
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.