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 ...
By their fruite ye shall know them
3 Ne. 14: 16-20
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.
2 Ne. 3: 4-7, 11-12, 14, 18-19, 21
4 For behold, thou art the fruit of my loins; and I am a descendant of Joseph who was carried captive into Egypt. And great were the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph.
5 Wherefore, Joseph truly saw our day. And he obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of his loins the Lord God would raise up a righteous branch unto the house of Israel; not the Messiah, but a branch which was to be broken off, nevertheless, to be remembered in the covenants of the Lord that the Messiah should be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of darkness unto light—yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.
6 For Joseph truly testified, saying: A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.
7 Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord 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, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers.
• • •
11 But a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.
12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the 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 the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
• • •
14 And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise;
• • •
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.
19 And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the fruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them from the dust; for I know their faith.
• • •
21 Because of their faith their words shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers.
You really, really hate it here on FR, don’t you.
http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/jacob/4?lang=eng
13Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really care, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.
14But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.
15And now I, Jacob, am led on by the Spirit unto prophesying; for I perceive by the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that by the stumbling of the Jews they will reject the stone upon which they might build and have safe foundation.
16But behold, according to the scriptures, this stone shall become the great, and the last, and the only sure foundation, upon which the Jews can build.
Further, the Book of Mormon has many key elements that show that the Jews will indeed come to the true knowledge of the Messiah, and look no more for a future Messiah, and come into all the blessings they have been promised as a people of the Lord.
Frankly, what you try to do here is beyond the pale. I have no use for your methods or your obsession.
In fact, v. 15 reinforces the Jews as "stumblers."
Re: v. 13, Ripliancum...what? Did you have trouble reading for the first part of that sentence you highlighted?
But behold, WE are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.
Who's the "we" Ripliancum?...not just generic "prophets of old."
And "witnesses" of this?
Obviously, this means...
...Per the informal Lds "doctrine" Lds FREEPERS spout to us everyday...
...Your collective formula applies, does it not?
And what collective informal doctrinal statement is that?
It's the one LDS Freepers lecture us on daily: That -- if anybody says anything negative about a religion -- then they are pure & simple an "anti"...and Mormons are anti-antis [which I guess makes them also "antis" of a sort].
It's obvious to us that the writer of that Book of Jacob -- based upon Book of Jacob 4:13-15 [thanks, Ripliancum for adding those verses...'cause those two verses actually adds to the "anti" dynamic] -- is an "anti-Jew." In fact, thanks to Ripliancum's citation, we see that this person thinks it's his mission to point out how he is a "WITNESS" to Jews in presenting anti-Judaism! He is witnessing the Book of Mormon way! [which, whenever a non-Mormon does it is somehow anathema to Mormons!].
["But how can that be," you might say? "This person writing it is Jewish!"...Well, #1, I don't believe Joseph Smith was Jewish...I'm not sure Magritte thinks the person who authored it is Jewish...but I'll let him address that if he wants to...#2...Let's say we pretend for a moment a Jew wrote it...there are ex-Jews theologically speaking who still retain Jewish blood...Hence, this person spouts off to Jews like an ex-Mormon might say to a Mormon...hence if that ex-Mormon is an "anti-Mormon," then by the same standard, this person is an "anti-Jew" no matter how you cut it based upon your collective daily lectures.]
Certainly v. 16 isn't out of harmony with the Bible...but it doesn't dilute or dissolve v. 14.
And, Ripliancum, to clarify, it's not that v. 14 says many things that more terrible about the Jews than what the Bible says @ different times about mankind in general. It just that it singles out the Jews with some absolute kind of characteristics as if those conditions were only inherent within Jews...note, for example, the author's double absolute emphasis of "could not understand" and "cannot understand." (Ripliancum if you CANNOT or COULD NOT understand, that's a pretty conclusive "locked door" label that the Mormon god has hung around the neck of Jews, isn't?)
And since you've been tithing along with likely many/most Mormon FREEPERS to circulate this stuff worldwide...doesn't that make you...and Mitt Romney...and Jon Huntsman...an "anti-Jew"...since Mormons so freely like the throw out the "anti" label?
ALL: Certainly...compared to Mormon doctrine -- what Lds doctrine later came along to emphasize -- the Book of Jacob 4:13-15 is actually rather a shocking contrast. You see, Mormons came later to stress how people are "gods in embryo" -- literal spiritual children of Heavenly Father
But you see, Joseph Smith NEVER taught that in the beginning. Those things came AFTER he published the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Book of Mormon twice militates against the idea that ALL people are automatically God's child...see the Book of Mosiah, 5:7...Mosiah 27:25...both teach Mormons that people become sons & daughters of God -- NOT that they are automatically so!
But 'tis all interesting, Ripliancum...here...we have Mormons stressing how Jews are blind stumblers & have fallen to such a degree that they absolutely CANNOT & COULD not understand because, well, per the Book of Mormon, they claim that's their inherent desire. So apparently even those Mosiah verses don't apply to them, eh?
Hey thanks for the ping...the Book Of Mormon has one thing in common with the Christian New Testament, as it tends to take a mashup of various Tanakh verses and Jewish lore and uses them to try to prop up the particular religion of its authors. “Jacob” and Smith were not Jewish by any stretch of the imagination nor are the LDS descendants of Israel. In addition, there have been no prophets since prophecy ceased with the destruction of the ancient temple in Jerusalem...magritte
Um...
Hum...
You have an interesting and different definition of troll and ignore than most it seems...
Do you think God really told the church to exclude Blacks, on the basis of their skin alone, from the priesthood?
Why would God make such a statement to last for 100 years where previously he had not had any comment on the race of other humans?
Why would God command polygamy for 50 years and in the convenient demand of LDS elders to join the union suddenly have a revelation that polygamy is now verbotten?
Why and to what end is polygamy going to occur in heaven or on some distant planet?
What is the purpose?
Just asking.
DUH!
When one lifts SO much outta the BIBLE; THIS little detail got picked up, too!
Well, well, well...
A Noahide ACCUSER!
Who knew!?
Would YOU like to put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is?
Please, list just ONE thing we've typed that is CONTEMPTable!
Good luck!
I try to get them to DOCUMENT their ACCUSATIONS but seem to have no luck.
Perhaps you; wsiuth the POWER you wield; will be more successful.
tsk tsk you better stick to your supermarket checkout tabloid posts or you are gonna blow a gasket.
So I reference a real case of an LDS mom internally drowning her 4-year-old adopted daughter in post #16 -- and I link to the article that just was published a day ago about this LDS' murderer's release; and you say I'm "guilty" of making up some "blood libel? Tell you what, Charles...why don't go and look up the pictures of this dead girl yourself. What? This girl had no direct murderer? UNLIKE SARAH PALIN, CHARLES...THIS WOMAN WAS CONVICTED OF MURDER!!! THERE WAS NOTHING INDIRECT OR SECOND-HAND INCENDIARY LANGUAGE ABOUT IT!!!
And, you, the father of a daughter? Do you say ONE LITTLE THING ON BEHALF OF THE VICTIM? (No!) Do you ever take the time to acknowledge somebody else's daughter who was victimized? (No!) Instead, who do you go after? (Me???)
As for "substituting 'Jewish' for Mormon, what do you think about these words of Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon? Where are you Charles -- besides AWOL -- in defending Jews as they are libeled in this Book of Mormon passage by Smith & his disciples?
Book of Mormon, book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon 4:14:
"But behold, the Jews were a
STIFFNECKED people;
and they DESPISED the words of plainness,
and KILLED the prophets,
and sought for things that they COULD NOT understand.
Wherefore, because of their BLINDNESS, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark,
they must needs falls;
for God hath taken away his plainness from them,
and delivered unto them many things which they CANNOT understand, because they DESIRED it.
And because they DESIRED it God hath done it, that they may stumble."
Where, Charles -- on the part I highlighted above? Tell me what post # on this thread where I impugned anybody's motive re: some supposed defense of murderers? Which FREEPERS did I so impugn their motive?
It's not there, Charles. You have falsely accused me here -- and you owe me an apology.
But this post -- #47 -- provides the real heart of what I'd like to address.
So please allow me to address your three similar comments from three posts here:
* So, FOR THE EDIFICATION OF THE FREEPERS FOLLOWING THIS THREAD, WHY DON'T YOU GO TO THAT EXTENSIVE SET OF POSTS ON THE RAIDS, AND LINK TO SOME COMMENT I MADE THAT CONTAINED "REDICULOUS DEFENSES ON BEHALF OF THE FLDS" Or, you could apologize for suggesting that I ever defended the FLDS. My arguments were legal, and were vindicated by the final court ruling regarding the seizure of hundreds of children without rational cause. [#47]
(My note on your bold-faced comment above: OK, I will...ALL -- including YOU, Charles -- remember -- YOU invited me to do this):
* And as a point of clarification — I have never argued for or against any group using the term “mormon”, in fundamentalist form or otherwise. [#52]
* ...it is hard to discuss the issues if when you do, people accuse you of being mormon sympathisers... [#54]
Charles, I directly interacted with you back on those threads -- both during the Spring of '08 -- and after.
Reading your comments back then, CW, was often like riding a rollercoaster!
Why?
Because on the one hand you'd be agreeing with the majority of posters...including me...
You'd make these concessions -- these admissions -- which would usually go against the tenor of your other posts...
And that's why in my sense of fairness I went back to review what you said -- so that people would not simply get a lopsided review of your comments.
Here's some a sampling of those concessions you made:
(1) Will I be surprised if the DNA shows that all the girls in fact were made pregnant by a few old men? From what I’ve seen alleged of this group, not really. It would seem to be the likely outcome. (April 28, 2008) (Source: Officials: 31 of 53 girls from [FLDS] sect ranch have been pregnant (via. Drudge)
(2) Bad things happened to at least some of the children in this compound. (April 28, 2008 Post 589 Source: Officials: 31 of 53 girls from [FLDS] sect ranch have been pregnant (via. Drudge)
(3) There will most certainly be some children in the group who either were statutorily raped, or were forced against their will into marriages, or who are from a family where the mother or father allowed another child to endure such things. May 20, 2008 Post #24
Source: Sect children not to hear leader's name, Texas CPS says
(4) Yes, I think there were some guilty people, and some kids who were abused. (Sept. 6, 2008) Post #32 FLDS Children Safe With Their Parents
Now I reviewed quite a number of statements you've made...and I want to compliment you that you're a very principled person who sticks to your convictions even when heat is being generated your way. You are able to remain calm; keep in check your "provocation meter" most of the time. And you pride yourself on applying your principles evenly and across the board -- no matter who and how they effect. You don't show favoritism. You have a very "justice" oriented personality; and you realize the danger of a government overstepping itself re: intruding itself too far. You are a quick study. You do farely well in sizing up a situation and commenting upon it in a good summarized way. Most of the time you stay on topic without wanting to get entangled with tangents -- both real and perceived ones.
However, we all can use a little feedback now & then -- just as you've chosen to give me feedback on this thread. Juxtaposed to these common sense statements you made above, the following statements exemplify a bit of wrecklessness on your part -- and is why I said your arguments essentially went too far on the side of defense re: fLDS:
Examples:
(1) May 23, 2008: They [FLDS] took great pains to attempt to practice their religion as they believed in it, without breaking the law.
Source: Post #38 Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown out
You know...when you've had as many perpetrators in places like the El Dorado Texas location...perhaps up to a dozen (or even more)...it takes a GREAT DEAL of no-fuss silence, capitulation to the exploiters' wishes, and just plain covering up. IOW...most of those people were as guilty for ongoing compliance with criminal patterns re: abusing teens! So for you to have made that statement above was absolutely ludicrous!
You see how many individuals this involved when you realized how even one person contributed to these patterns. Let's take Allan Keate, for example:
On December 18, 2009, a Schleicher County, Texas jury found Allan Keate guilty of sexual assault of a child. He was sentenced to 33 years in prison. Allan Keate fathered a child with a 15-year old girl.[54] According to documents admitted at trial, Keate had also given three of his own daughters away in “spiritual” or “celestial” marriage, two of them at 15 and one at 14, to older men. The youngest of the three went to Warren Jeffs.[55] [Footnotes -- 54 was from Dallasnews.com; 55 = UPDATE: Jury gives FLDS man 33 years ...Source: Wikipedia
So, here Keate not only fathered a child with a 15-year-old...but he also gave away three of his own daughters to this practice -- one of them a 14-year-old and two 15-year-olds! IOW...it appears for each of the dozen cases they've been prosecuting, dozens of others (parents, for example) catered to all of this! And then you had the leaders who ordered these arrangements; those who performed "spiritual sham marriages," etc. Even though we don't see these people prosecuted for aiding and abetting such criminal activity, they indeed broke the law as well! They were culpable! Even you conceded back then, Charles, that we were seeing "a general indication that the cult may have condoned activity by one or more of it's members that was illegal."
Source: June 9, 2008 Perry defends polygamist raid
(2) Even two years after, you were still saying things like: I oppose the “production” of child marriages. I also oppose homosexuality, adultery, and voting for Democrats.But people have the right to advocate for ALL of those things without interference from the government. That is the essense of free speech, being allowed to say what you believe, no matter how onerous it is. Post #26, June 23, 2010
Source: Jury finds FLDS man guilty in sexual assault case
You know, Charles, you can be technically say "legit" things from a "legal" standpoint -- and still be doing the enemy's work by emphasizing that such a form of so-called "advocacy" is no different than, say, that everybody has the right to learn how to play the guitar!
I mean I could make an awfully LONG list of what is technically legal to "advocate" for -- yet is as immoral as all hell breaking out...
Therefore, I'm not exactly sure why you would want to associate one of the very Names of the Holy Spirit -- Advocate (paraclete in the Greek) in conjunction with all of those sordid things. You see, Biblically, "Advocate" is a consecrated, Holy term set aside for the Holy Spirit and those through whom He acts! Why in heaven's name would you desecrate such a term to be applied to those who produce "child marriages?"
It's similar to those who describe "abortion" as a "choice." OK, sure, technically abortion is a "decision"; but to describe it in either amoral or neutral terms does a great disservice to being true to what that act really involves. And the way you framed the above -- to place those who lobby for producing "child marriages" in the same lineup as voting...just wow! Charles!
Same thread...a few posts earlier you stated:
(3) We have freedom of religion in our country, and that unfortunately means you have the freedom to raise your child to believe any bizarre religion you choose, including a religion that teaches that children should be married to old men at young ages (you don’t have the right to PERFORM those marriages, but you have the right to teach that the religion requires it....)
Charles...let's substitute a few things with some hypothetical religion:
Instead of it being "spiritual marriage" (exploitive lifetime of sexual abuse) being taught by a cult, let's say another cult mandated teaching abortion for its teens & young adults.
Instead of practicing such sham marriages in the temple, let's say another cult mandated not only "teaching" abortion -- but getting the abortions done to cover up the cult's pattern of incest.
I've paralleled the above -- both your comment & my hypothetical allow for one "legal" component & recognizes also one "illegal" thing going on, pattern-wise.
Rather than drag this post on any further, let me cut to the bottom line: Charles, what you said was tantamount to saying: We have freedom of choice in our country, and that unfortunately means you have the freedom to butcher your child at the hands of any bizarre abortionist you choose, including a "clinic" that subtly suggests older minors impregnated by adults should undergo the abortion (you don’t have the right if you're an abortion clinic counselor to cover up such a knowledge of statutory rape, but a religious counselor has the right to teach that the religion requires such an abortion for various reasons)....
I guess, Charles, I never did respect politicians who would claim, "I wouldn't have an abortion myself, but we have freedom of choice in this country..." (& they'd go on from there). Your comment I cited tended to "smack" along those lines.
Other examples, Charles, will follow...showing how on more than one occasion you were "conflating" what was occurring...
2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Well, this is essentially Part II of following up your (CharlesWayneCT's) invite.
Charles, FR poster allmendream did an excellent job of calling you on the carpet last June 23 on this very issue...and I'll quote him further on down in this post to key in on the heart of my objections to some of your past posting.
But before I do, I need to address some of your inconsistencies in the last several years...that perhaps you can elaborate upon...because as you requested -- I am indeed giving you feedback on what kind of a "rollercoaster" it is to read your comments at times!
In addition to your challenge for your past posts to be reviewed, why else is what follows relevant to your post #47?
You said in that post: ...it was purely an argument about government abuse of power. That even now you don’t understand why, on a POLITICAL CONSERVATIVE FORUM, people would argue against governmental abuse of power even when you like the outcome of that abuse of power, makes me wonder what exactly you are here for?
Well, let's get to the nitty gritty of how you define "abuse of power" -- and what "abuse" supposedly occurred:
(1) Is what the CPS did in the raid of the FLDS compound "kidnapping" -- or is it not "kidnapping?" (That is the first relevant question)
* (Arguing the "anti" position -- that it's not "kidnapping" is CharlesWayneCT): The kids were NOT kidnapped. The CPS had a lawful order to investigate, and has broad (maybe overly broad) powers to take temporary custody of children if they percieve a threat. So while I think they were WRONG to take all the children, it was NOT “kidnapping”, which is a specific criminal charge. CW post #108, May 17, 2008 Source: FLDS mother victorious in court
* (Arguing the "pro" postion -- that it was "kidnapping" is CharlesWayneCT): And my guess is that some here still would defend KIDNAPPING 440 children who were completely safe, in order to rescue the few that were not. CW post to Mormon Saundra Duffy, post #6, Sept 6 2008 FLDS Children Safe with their Parents
Which CharlesWayneCT rules the day on this matter?
(2) This one on the surface seems contradictory...but since you may have meant this in distinct terms as you were thinking this through, I'll encourage you to explain why the distinctions...unlike (#1) above, you may have a very logical consideration that just didn't come through how you worded it.
On the one hand...you advocated that we review the fLDS as a whole:
(a) Note that in this case, we MUST look at the group as a whole, because the charge was made about the group as a whole. Whereas elsewhere I argue that we can’t look at the group, because the law targets individuals, not membership in groups.
Source: May 6, 2008: LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article
And again: (B) A proper corporate focus: ... again this is not evidence of wrongdoing by any particular person in the FLDS compound that was raided, only a general indication that the cult may have condoned activity by one or more of it's members that was illegal.
Source: June 6, 2008 Perry defends polygamist raid
So you acknowledged our need to look corporately -- as well as individually. These dozen guys since then -- half of them, anyway -- were tried as individuals, not as a group. But what you continually failed to consider in all of your postings is that the D.A.s office & detectives & sherriff's department...yes, they needed to lean heavily toward collecting individual evidence...yet the CPS from the get-go HAD to consider pre-emptive protection at the corporate group level.
That's why, I believe, in your exchanges with MEGoody in the June 9, 2008 thread below, your tilted emphasis on an "individual" focus was a bit unbalanced:
You said to MEGoody: As I said, you treated the entire cult like it was a single entity. Fortunately, the law treats each individual as a separe and unique person, to be judged on their own sins, and not the perceived errors of “the cult”. Source: June 9, 2008 Perry defends polygamist raid
And, same thread: And: For example, that is why, when the New England Patriots were found to have cheated and taped their opponents, the fine was levied against the team, and not against the 4 dozen or so players that are part of the team. Source: June 9, 2008 Perry defends polygamist raid
Your problems above?
#1 you had just said a month earlier how "we MUST look at the GROUP as a WHOLE, because the charge was made about the group as a whole" AND "a general indication" [existed] "that THE CULT may have condoned activity by one or more of it's members that was illegal." -- and yet by June of that year you were calling out MEGoody on the carpet on him essentially using the same language you did!
#2 Your use of the New England Patriots as an illustration applies to a D.A.'s world and a courtroom! (Trying the "individual"). It fails greatly to apply it to the CPS! The CPS' mission was to pre-empt abuse, not hand out penalties!
By April 25 of 2008, I was telling other FREEPERS:
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).
Law enforcement agencies working with prosecutors play "offense" to get the perps off the streets. What we saw earlier this month was child removal, not men arrested.
When I wrote this post to CharlesWayneCT, even though we are on opposite sides of this debate, he said it was “a good summary of the crux of the debate": Whereas the law enforcement folks might take weeks to investigate a case before charges are pressed (an offensive role vs. suspected perps), CPS is charged with a more immediate intervention role to pre-empt potential reoccurrence of a sexual tramautic event (defensive role). It doesn't have to have to same level of investigative certainty." In part, CharlesWayneCT responded: "Actually, that is a good summary of the crux of the debate. The level of certainty before a person is arrested for a crime is much different than the level used before a child is arrested for being abused…"
Source: Post #36, April 25, 2008 Life in the real world (The evils of polygamy)
You acknowledged back then, Charles, that this was a good way to rightly divide the situation. And fairly early on in the developments (May 6, 2008), you seemed to recognize this need to weigh both the group as well as the individual. Yet I couldn't help but notice, Charles, how inconsistent you applied this proper distinction...I mean there you were seemingly rightly assessing the situation on May 6...yet the very day before you seemed to lose the proper need to protect children from parents -- since CPS didn't know which parents were part of the problem!
Your Post #64, May 5, 2008: As to your comment about the first point, again my concern is using “FLDS group” and insisting that all parents who were at the ranch should be treated as if they were the leader of the group. Post #64 May 5, 2008: Parents seek Ottawa's help (YFZ/fLDS Daily Thread - 5/5/08)
My belief is that this was one of the "core" issues as to why so many FREEPERS interpreted you as being in "defense" of the fLDS. We didn't always take note of your roller-coaster solid common-sense comments I highlighted in a previous post. 'Twas this issue (I believe) why FREEPER poster allmendream accused you of "conflating" (defined as melding; fusing together). Over & over again you defined what the CPS did as "abuse." And you harped on that.
IF there was "abuse" there -- then perhaps you can get on many FREEPERS case for ignoring it or downplaying it. But you know what? I don't believe you made your case in light of the pre-emptive context involved.
Your greatest inconsistency here, Charles, was that you kept insisting upon "evidence" of abuse as committed by the fLDS...but then you turned around and didn't offer specific evidence that ALL of the children seized by the CPS were so "abused." (You just assumed it.) You seemed to hold one bar -- one standard for the fLDS -- but you held yet another standard for the CPS!
After Allmendream called you out on it last June 23, I went back to see if another early example existed. And I found it:
(1): And I would know the irreparable harm the CPS would do to such children, not to mention their ability to solicit statements from frightened, beleaguered children who would say anything to get to see their parents again. May 18, 2008
Source: [FLDS] Polygamist sect cases begin individual hearings
You know for a poster who demanded & demanded & demanded & demanded in your Spring 2008 posts that the CPS & State provide "evidence" of abuse...
...You sure were let off easy in all those posts where you demanded evidence -- all the while you automatically assumed that ALL of these kids were necessarily "abused" by the authorities. Here, I pointed out above that you said May 17, 2008 that the CPS/State was NOT guilty of kidnapping. So tell us: What was the exact nature of the "abuse" the CPS committed? Physical abuse? Sexual abuse? Neglect? Be specific. If they weren't guilty of kidnapping, then what legal definition to you offer to confirm your constant accusations?
Even June 23, 2010, you claimed: It is good that they were able to use evidence to convict these men. Their actions put even that at possible risk. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of children who have been abused by being forcibly separated from their mothers. But that abuse doesn’t count, so long as we got to convict 6 men of criminal acts. It’s just acceptable collateral damage, I guess. (Post #11) June 23, 2010: Jury finds FLDS man guilty in sexual assault case
So, tell us. Where's your evidence that ALL of these kids suffered "irreparable harm" as you claimed May 18 2008? What? You on your quarterback chair/high horse could demand "evidence" of "abuse" as the authorities, media & posters pontificated -- but you? You could offer the same charges (@ the CPS) & yet fail to provide specific evidence to apply to specific kids?
You know...I pointed out how you made all kinds of generic concessions that yes, abuse, went on there by this cult...but then you would say things like the following...(can you please Charles look @ this through our eyes as to why we would at times come away thinking you were "defending" this cult -- when we would see you write things like..???.
They believed (wrongly) that God called for men to have more than one wife, so they performed spiritual marriages that were not recognized by the state. They had men sleeping with multiple partners, and fathering children by those multiple partners. They took great pains to attempt to practice their religion as they believed in it, without breaking the law. May 23, 2008 Post #38 Texas seizure of polygamist-sect kids thrown out
Now let's move on to the heart then of how you were conflating/melding/fusing the so-called "abuse" -- which I believe gave you such an unbalanced approach:
Conflation Citation (2) (From allmendream to you): You have an interesting way of conflating the “abuse” that these girls suffered from their “marriages” that was LIFELONG AND SEXUAL/RELIGIOUS/CULTURAL DOMINATION; and the TEMPORARY "ABUSE" of being separated from your parents and interviewed by the government. This ‘religion’ was apparently an ONGOING CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CHILD RAPE FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM. that it is engaged in a criminal conspiracy; NOR IS IT INCUMBENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO IGNORE A RELIGION ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE AUSPICES OF NOT RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO JUDGE A RELIGION AS A RELIGION TO NOTICE THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY, NOR IS IT INCUMBENT UPON THE GOVERNMENT TO IGNORE A RELIGION ENGAGED IN A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY UNDER THE AUSPICES OF NOT RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. CONFLATE IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE DOING; USING THE SAME WORD AND COMPARIUNG, AS IF THEY WERE EVEN SLIGHTLY COMPARABLE, THE "ABUSE" OF BEING INTERVIEWED BY GOVERNMENT AGENTS, AND THE "ABUSE" OF A GIRL BEING 'SOLD' BY THEIR FATHER TO SOME OLD PERVERT. THE "SUFFERING" OF BEING ROUTED OUT OF YOUR PARENTS HOME AND BEING INTERVIEWED BY AGENTS OF THE STATE IS HARDLY COMPARABLE TO THE ACTUAL SUFFERING OF BEING SOLD OFF TO SOME PERVERT BY YOUR FATHER FOR A LIFETIME OF SERVITUDE AND YEARS OF SEXUAL ABUSE. YOUR ATTEMPT TO CONFLATE THE TWO TYPES OF "ABUSE" I FIND SICKENING.
Source:
June 23 2010, posts 19 & 23 Jury finds FLDS man guilty in sexual assault case
As much as what you've said on FR through the years that is quite conservatively solid, I can't agree more with allmendream. In fact, it was really only upon reviewing ALL of your comments in context on this cult that I could say that...and in fact say that with my blood slightly boiling in indignation and my adrenalin running.
I'm sure there's comments I've made, Charles on some of these threads that one day I need to repent for. I can solidly say -- this is where your need for repentance lies.
"Not that" you "mind?" Really? Then why did you say -- in the heat of the fLDS dozens of threads in the Spring of 2008?:
...being a political forum, I try to avoid discussing the details of my religious beliefs.
Source: May 6, 2008: LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article
I know since that time you indeed have discussed religion often enough. But allow me to turn around the Q to you: At the time you made this May 6, 2008 comment, what if somebody responded to you back then, "Hey, Charles, 'do you ever like to just argue religious beliefs, or is your primary focus here politics?'"
(Obviously, it's been politics most of the time...but my point is that once upon a time, you seemingly steered away from certain topics...so what's wrong with me prioritizing my topics as well?)
Never argued that? Not even in a "round-about" way?
First of all, isn't the root most basic foundational issue here one that transcends who gets to use what initials, abbreviations, and names in their titles?
I mean, really...is that what we're debating here? Come now, Charles...those are silly surface issues that point to most of the iceberg underneath the surface!
Let's get to the meat of it. Are not the real key questions the following?
(1) Are ALL the MORMON groups one religion with distinctive separate branches? (Or, are they distinctive religions?)
(2) Are the various MORMON groups of the same "family" or "extended family" -- sharing the same genealogical heritage?
(3) Is there lacking enough of a shared identity to make various titles exclusive to one group or another?
(4) Dogma/teaching/Articles of Faith/Mormon "scriptures" -- are there enough distinctions here to say "these are two separate religions" -- or, are they "one religion with distinct split-off branches?" (Or are they even as some Mormons claim, all one branch -- tho not identical?)
(5) By way of illustration, are not Presbyterians of the same faith & the same generic identity & the same family & same heritage -- no matter what Presbyterian denomination they are in? (Is this not also true of comparing one Lutheran group to another?; or one Methodist/Wesleyan group to another? Or one Baptist group to another?; so likewise one Mormon group to another?)
(6) Therefore: Are not these groups more commonly id'd as...Presbyterian -- or Lutheran -- or Baptist -- or Mormon (their UNITY)...
...vs. their distinctive denominations under EACH of those banners (their DIVERSITY)? Therefore am I not justified when I write fLDS emphasizing that the fundamentalists are more "MORMON" heritage-wise than they are fundamentalists in what makes them distinctive?
Charles, why do you keep harping on my case because you seemingly don't think I emphasize their "diversity" enough?...
Well, back atcha: YOU DON'T EMPHASIZE WHAT THEY CARRY IN COMMON ENOUGH! In fact, you've gone on record saying that...
(a) While you now claim "clear distinctions" exist -- we haven't clarified if these "distinctions" are ones like siblings of the same family -- or the distinctions of different families? (By not clarifying this, you beg the meaty question!) After all, only a few years back, Charles, you weren't very interested in such distinctive "specifics" that overlapped these family branches, were you?
(b) Your comment, May 6, 2008: I was discussing the generalization of the comparison between TWO RELIGIONS. I’m not actually discussing THE SPECIFICS of those TWO RELIGIONS, just whether it is a fair comparison to claim they are identical..If someone was arguing that some leader of FLDS compared to some leader of LDS, I wouldn’t bother to join the discussion..
Source: May 6, 2008: LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article
So, my question, Charles, if you were so focused on the "specifics" of these groups back then...on what grounds did you automatically rule them as entirely separate religions? (IOW...Presbyterianism is Christian; Lutheranism is Christian; Assemblies of God is Christian; etc. are not all the Mormon groups likewise MORMON?)
So what argument flaws does your May 6, 2008 comments show?
* Straw man: How? Who's been claiming that fundamentalist MORMONS and other MORMONS are "identical", Charles? (I haven't! I haven't seen other FREEPERS do that, either). Charles, even most twins aren't "identical." 'Twas easy for you to shoot down that straw man!
* Begging the question: You've been able to beg this question now for going on three years because I don't seem to see you discuss "the specifics of those two" families of MORMONS!
You seem so pre-determined to 100% segregate the two beyond being two branches! Why?
I came across a post of yours last year -- two posts in the same thread actually -- which provide a "hint" as to that "why" question...but since I want to be cautious -- not simply jumping to conclusions without properly running it by you...I'll just ask you point blank:
Why?
I don't think it's just because you may have Lds friends...nor do I think it's just because at one time you apparently supported Mitt Romney...(but who knows...by all means, do tell).
What past posts have you given that may hint at one reason -- certainly not necessarily the only one? (Ah, well, I need to quote those -- and ask you in a few posts down the line if they are indeed relevant or not)
For now, what have you revealed in this thread that may indicate you've done a bit of studying up on the various Mormon sects these past two years?
Well, you said, in Post #46: In my opinion, there are enough clear distinctions to argue about in LDS doctrine that we shouldn’t have to stoop to false guilt-by-association arguments.
So...please...tell us...which comment of yours holds supreme? Is it your '08 comment that comparative "specifics" don't interest you? Or, have you studied enough supposed "clear distinctions" that you've now formed an "opinion" you want to impose upon me?!!! (Please, do tell)
Which...all leads us back to your post #52 where you say you have no beef with fLDS using its initials, abbreviations, or name...
...Apparently your beef with me was that the reader may not be able to distinguish between the two...
...Which leads me to ask you:
* HOW much DO we need to distinguish?
* Based on upon WHAT?
* And WHY? (The last Q -- what motivates you to do that?)
So...since you've opined (#46) ...enough clear distinctions to argue about in LDS doctrine that we shouldn’t have to stoop to false guilt-by-association arguments...by all means, Charles...go ahead...stop begging the question here again...because if you have failed to prove your claims of a significant enough "disassociation" (the WHAT I mentioned above) -- then on WHAT grounds are such associations either "false" or free of the same heritage that's handed down such reasons for whatever "guilt" you're addressing?
Don't you see all the questions you raise?
* If you DON'T have a problem with fLDS using either "LDS" or "MORMON" in the title, why all the fuss if one letter is de-capitalized? (IOW are they not already "LDS" and "MORMON" to some largely-shared generally agreed-upon degree -- and now we're just arguing over decimal points of how much?)
* Why your seeming hesitancy to investigate how much they overlap Mormon orthodoxy, Mormon "scriptures," Mormon dogma, Mormon Articles of Faith, and Mormon teachings?
* Why do you automatically rule that out as relevant? Just because of what you said in post #42 -- that "LDS and FLDS disavow each other"...Well haven't conservative Presbyterian & Lutheran denominations "disavowed" the liberal branches because of homosexual pastors & the like? Yet does that mean the conservative Presbyterians & Lutherans have the power to declare the liberal branches null & void? How consistent are you?
* And if these disavowed groups are "two [separate] religions" -- as you claimed in '08 -- then prove it! (The burden of proof is on you)
BTW, Charles several other loose notes here:
* You not only were begging the question with that May 6, 2008 comment, but you did so again in post #46 of this thread:
In my opinion, there are enough clear distinctions to argue about in LDS doctrine that we shouldn’t have to stoop to false guilt-by-association arguments. Although clearly you don’t believe they are false. I think arguing that the typical mormon family, or mormons in general, are culpable for torturing and drowning children is a false argument, and as inappropriate as the argument that Sarah Palin is responsible if a right-winger ever does end up shooting someone. [Post #46, this thread]
Of course, Charles, your comment that "I think arguing that...mormons in general, are culpable for torturing...children is a false argument..." all depends if YOU have successfully defined fundamentalist MORMONS out of the "MORMON" family, does it not?
Do you have such power, Charles? Have YOU been able to define them willy-nilly by CharlesWayne fiat out of the "MORMON" family? You seem to continually beg the question.
(You see...re-read post #48 -- as to why I responded to your post #46 as I did)
Another loose note: Let's see now...how many times on this thread, Charles, have you accused my internal motivation to "deceive"? (And here I thought forum rules expressly forbid posters from directly accusing others of lying/deceiving -- because that's an accusation that you know somebody's internal motivation is to deceive...so you can read my mind now, Charles?)
If you want to know my motivation, it's simple: Reread those first six questions from this post -- questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...you see...EACH time I type in a de-capitalized "f" I am essentially "encouraging" the reader to deal with the underlying meaty issues & questions...questions we NEED to wrestle with! I'm not doing it to deceive, or to, as you once put it to another FREEPER, convince others that fundamentalist MORMONS are "identical" or are the same "family" as other MORMONS...apparently, unlike you, Charles, I actually give FREEPERS enough credit to be discerning enough to know distinctions indeed exist.
But your post #46 intrigued me enough to ask you if you think "polygamy" is one of those so-called "distinctives" -- one that has weighted on you so heavily -- that you may consider that practice almost alone as "enough" of a distinction to keep all separate?
And if you've granted so much weight to this one "practice" Why?
As I said earlier, the burden of proof is on you to distinguish what's so different dogma & teaching-wise between the LDS and fLDS!
Do you realize that the fLDS & LDS were united behind polygamy for over 100 years! [polygamous couples married between the 1870s & the very early 1900s were still around when the split finally occurred in the 1930s...leading to the fLDS in the 1940s.]
So they united behind polygamy for over 100 years;
then divided over it on SOME aspects less than 80 years...
...They've agreed longer than they've disagreed...
...And even the present "disagreement" isn't over Doctrine & Covenants 132 which teaches polygamy...
...'Cause the LDS still have it on the books as official, canonized Mormon "scripture."
In fact, the disagreement isn't even over polygamy as an "institution": Lds Bruce McConkie in his book, Mormon Doctrine, referenced polygamy as a "holy" practice & that Jesus would re-usher it back in when the Mormon Jesus returned...
...Therefore, the real disagreement on Mormon polygamy is timing and application extension.
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.