Police now say abductor of 14-year-old Utah girl didn't know he was watched by her sister

I am content with the reports I received from FORMER Mormons whose credibility in speaking on these matters in particular is without equal.

You can't provide even one "well known" example, out of numbers as big as "clans," huh? It seems like you've contented yourself with falsehoods. It seems like you are more prone to slander than speak truth.

I have done family history--"trolled through" as you say. That's how I know that your remarks were false.

I also have some former Mormon friends. They often try and find fault with the religion in order to placate their own minds. I would be highly suspect of the credibility of the "Eat, drink and be merry" crowd when it comes to religion.

I have done family history--"trolled through" as you say. That's how I know that your remarks were false.

And this is where you lack a fundamental credibility.

In a single faily like the Smarts (70 first cousin relationships), or even as UtahGirl who on this very thread in posting number 312 freely discloses: I come from a family of ten, there are 46 people in my family, counting brothers, sisters, their spouses and children, and my parents. Go up one generation to my dad's family, and the number jumps to 227 (at last count.) So that big of a family is not that unusual here in Utah.

Assuming that you are personally math-enabled enough to realize that this is only one person's family in the state of Utah, I'll let the Law of Averages be my first witness.

I don't need to waste my time digging throught the LDS sources to establish evidence which appears right here. But add to that this fact: for the 170-odd years the LDS has existed, roughly 70 years of which were spent in actively practiced polygamy (or, stated differently approx. 40% of the time your religion has even existed), whether I rely on FR posters, accounts of former LDS-ers, or statistical probabilities, I suspect your lineage is more in-bred than you invested the sufficient effort to discover. So when you say, You can't provide even one "well known" example, out of numbers as big as "clans," huh?... it wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that I was talking to an example of one right here, but he just won't admit it. Of course, if you still refuse to admit it, we might just let the Law of Averages admit it for you and spare you whatever embarrassment that may represent.

Further to this comment, I would be highly suspect of the credibility of the "Eat, drink and be merry" crowd when it comes to religion., as this topic has nothing to do with either eating, drinking or making merry, you have merely failed in your own lack of credibility to assail the credibility of people who have left your cult behind on the basis of the fact that it is the cult that it has always been.

I'm continually amused by a religion that publically and on paper "forsakes" a doctrine held by your founders, and practiced for nearly 70 years, all for the political expediency of joining the United States. That is, of course, if what y'all practiced openly for 70 years you've just chosen to practice not-quite-so-openly now....

the more likely that some crazies exist

I am leaning toward the theory that an emotionally unstable person took her who may be known, or at least suspected, by the family. It would explain a lot of things, like the unusual statements by the family and why they seem to be talking to Elizabeth. However, unstable people are unpredictable, so they must walk on egg shells. I wonder too about the death of the grandfather. Could that event have pushed someone over the edge? The Francoms appear to me to be dark-haired, in contrast to the blond Smarts.

I'll let the Law of Averages be my first witness.

LOL about your post and "fundamental credibility."
You quote Utahgirl as giving evidence for inbreeding. I don't believe that's the case in her family. Don't twist what she said, which was that there are large families here in Utah. I come from one myself. However, large families do not equal inbreeding. It simply means some mormon families have lots of children. Lots of children over just a few generations means very large families. And if you know anything about the LDS faith, you know that a great number of the first mormons were converts that came from England, Ireland, and other countries. Your statements about "inbred" are unfounded. Mormons are inbred only in the sense that they tend to marry other mormons.

This topic has nothing to do with either eating, drinking or making merry

You have failed to grasp the meaning of those words.

you have merely failed in your own lack of credibility to assail the credibility of people who have left your cult behind on the basis of the fact that it is the cult that it has always been

Calling the LDS faith a "cult" only shows your bias. The mormons are a vast influence for good in the world, have provided millions in humanitarian efforts, and produce respected and productive members of society. This is a fact.

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.