• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

FLDS found 100% innocent in courts

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Why? It's a latter day saints forum. It's not a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints forum. Judging by the title, this forum is for things that have to do with latter-day saints in general, not just those latter-day saints who are members of one distinct, specific sect of the latter-day saints' movement.
You'd have to ask the administrators of the forum what they had in mind when they set up this sub-forum, but I'd be willing to guess that they were thinking specifically of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I wouldn't have a problem with this thread being in the Restorationists subforum, but I think that to have it in the Latter-day Saints subforum is going to encourage people to think of the FLDS as being a recognized subset of our Church. For instance, within the general description, "Baptist," you've got the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Churches in the USA and the Baptist Bible Fellowship International. All of these Baptists consider all of the others Baptists, even though they disagree on certain doctrines. The FLDS do not consider themselves to be a part of our Church, and we don't consider them to be part of our Church either. To me, that's a huge reason not to have threads about the FLDS in the LDS DIR forum, but in the Restorationists forum.
 

idea

Question Everything
Here are previous threads in this forum on the FLDS:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints/64486-i-know-why-they-cant-find.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints/65094-setting-record-straight-flds-erronously-called.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/restorationists/64075-400-kids-taken-texas-flds-compound.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/latter-day-saints/64051-flds-raid-texas-goes-peacful.html

It seems I was not the only one posting about it here. In any event, I am not sure why some members seem to be so offended by this topic. The point was not what relig they belong to, I was upset when this happened in waco, I would be upset if this happened to any relig denomination. Perhaps this one hits a little closer to home in that it is reminicent of what happened to Joseph Smith and others in the early church... I think that as Christians we should hold to "innocent until proven guilty" that we should think the best, and not the worst of our fellow brothers and sisters no matter what their faith... religious persecution in all of its forms should be abolished.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I'm not "offended," idea. I just think this is the wrong place for the thread, as it was the wrong place for the other threads you mentioned. It's not that big of a deal, though.

The point was not what relig they belong to, I was upset when this happened in waco, I would be upset if this happened to any relig denomination. Perhaps this one hits a little closer to home in that it is reminicent of what happened to Joseph Smith and others in the early church... I think that as Christians we should hold to "innocent until proven guilty" that we should think the best, and not the worst of our fellow brothers and sisters no matter what their faith... religious persecution in all of its forms should be abolished.
I agree.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
I just found this article from Reason Magazine online.

To justify seizing more than 450 children from the ranch, which is owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), CPS argued that the church's teachings are inherently abusive. CPS did not bother to present evidence that particular children were in immediate physical danger, as required by state law, because it thought membership in the polygamous sect was enough to make parents unfit.

CPS asserted that a "pervasive belief system" at the ranch, which it raided on April 3 in response to what seems to have been a fictitious abuse report, encouraged underage marriage. "They're living under an umbrella of belief that having children at a young age is a blessing," the lead investigator testified. "Therefore any child in that environment would not be safe."

But as the appeals court noted, "The existence of the FLDS belief system as described by the [state's] witnesses, by itself, does not put children of FLDS parents in physical danger. It is the imposition of certain alleged tenets of that system on specific individuals that may put them in physical danger."

CPS claimed 31 underage girls at the ranch were pregnant or mothers. It recently conceded that at least 15 of them are in fact adults, ranging in age from 18 to 27, while a 14-year-old on the list is not pregnant and has no children. A.P. reports "more mothers listed as underage are likely to be reclassified as adults."

In any case, as the appeals court noted, "teenage pregnancy, by itself, is not a reason to remove children from their home and parents." In Texas the minimum age for marriage with parental consent is 16 (raised from 14 in 2005 with the FLDS in mind), and "there was no evidence regarding the marital status of these girls when they became pregnant or the circumstances under which they became pregnant."

<--snip-->

CPS glossed over the lack of evidence by treating the entire 1,700-acre ranch as a single household. If there had been even one instance of abuse in the community, it argued, no child should be left there. This assumption of collective guilt was not only contrary to law; it was contradicted by the state's own witnesses, who conceded that FLDS members, only some of whom practice polygamy, disagree about the appropriate age for marriage.

The first parents to be reunited with their children after the appeals court's ruling, which CPS has asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse, were Joseph and Lori Jessop, both EMTs in their 20s. The monogamous couple's children&#8212;two boys and a girl, ages 1, 2, and 4&#8212;became ill during their state-imposed separation and had to be hospitalized.

When they were released, CPS caseworkers forcibly pulled the two older children from their mother. Until a judge intervened, CPS threatened to take the youngest child as well, saying nursing babies older than 12 months were not allowed to remain with their mothers.

Not surprisingly, the Jessops' older children are anxious these days, waking up repeatedly during the night and displaying regressive behavior. There was never any evidence that their parents abused them, but there's plenty that the state did.


It just strengthens my belief that, even if something bad is going down, the government usually does more harm than good.
 

Red Pill

Member
Again, there is NO EVIDENCE - the courts found every last one of them innocent, the children are finally being returned to their families - or did you miss that part?

What about all the pregnant under age girls? Isn't that evidence?
 

Aqualung

Tasty
What about all the pregnant under age girls? Isn't that evidence?

If you read the article I just posted right above you, it mentions how the majority of those girls actually weren't under age, and the ones that were under age actually weren't pregnant, and the fact that tenn pregnancy isn't actually a crime (just underage marriage).
 

Red Pill

Member
If you read the article I just posted right above you, it mentions how the majority of those girls actually weren't under age, and the ones that were under age actually weren't pregnant, and the fact that tenn pregnancy isn't actually a crime (just underage marriage).

Sorry, my mistake.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
If you read the article I just posted right above you, it mentions how the majority of those girls actually weren't under age, and the ones that were under age actually weren't pregnant, and the fact that tenn pregnancy isn't actually a crime (just underage marriage).


Just for the record, do you believe that " underage marriage" is going on there?
 

McBell

Unbound
The very title of this thread is at best a false statement and at worst a flat out bold faced lie....
 

madhatter85

Transhumanist
because the pictures they have of men fondling the young girls is absolutely no proof, i see now.

eligious freedom does not mean they have the right to defile thier children and beat thier wives and scare them into ever telling anyone about it.

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;" - That is right, absolutely NONE. these women and children live believing that thier husbands have free reign over thier lives.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
because the pictures they have of men fondling the young girls is absolutely no proof, i see now.
What pictures are those? As the article stated, the majority of the girls in question were over 18. I'm pretty sure people are allowed to take even te most vulgar pictures of themselves when both are adults.

religious freedom does not mean they have the right to defile thier children and beat thier wives and scare them into ever telling anyone about it.
I agree. And I'm also pretty sure that if the investigators had this type of evidence these people wouldn't have been let off on "insuficient evidence". So, perhaps such evidence doesn't exist?

"No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;" - That is right, absolutely NONE. these women and children live believing that thier husbands have free reign over thier lives.

And that's sad. But not a matter for the government when they can't even find enough evidence that laws have been broken.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This is why the government sucks. It tries to make things better, but in reality, the majority of what they do only serves to make things worse. Do I think the people in this community were particularly spectacular parents? Not if even what half the media says is true. But are they better off being shuttled around from one foster home to the next after having been detached from their crying and screaming mothers? Not even if the media is 100% right.
Keep in mind that the government is us. They are doing what we have mandated them to do when there is the possible threat of child sexual abuse in a household. Since there are several pregnant children involved (even though they are no longer pregnant or children, now), it is obvious that there has been sexual abuse. So the state was doing what it has been mandated to do in such circumstances.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Keep in mind that the government is us. They are doing what we have mandated them to do
And that is why democracy sucks. Too bad we don't have a constitution or something keeping the government from getting to powerful, even if the majority wants it...

it is obvious that there has been sexual abuse
I'm pretty sure that if it were obvious there would have been evidence... And if there were evidence, the charges probably wouldn't have been dropped due to, wait, what was it... Oh yeah. Insufficient evidence.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
And that is why democracy sucks. Too bad we don't have a constitution or something keeping the government from getting to powerful, even if the majority wants it...
We are in charge, here. If we don't want the government to act on threats of child sexual abuse until it has already occurred and someone has been convicted then all we have to do is make that mandate. But at the moment, people WANT the government to act preemptively when child sexual abuse is the threat. Stop blaming the governent. They are simply doing what we told them to do.
I'm pretty sure that if it were obvious there would have been evidence... And if there were evidence, the charges probably wouldn't have been dropped due to, wait, what was it... Oh yeah. Insufficient evidence.
It is plenty obvious in that underage girls can't become pregnant without child sexual abuse having occurred. But to prove it, and to prove who did it is another matter, especially when the girls themselves are not willing to cooperate in the investigation.
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
A duly appointed investigative committee couldn't find evidence of it. That's got to say something.


Yes, it says they teach ( brainwash) the people well on how to answer people.

Just about everyone who "escape" these flds compounds confirms arranged under age and mutilple marriages.

Do you deny this?
 

Aqualung

Tasty
We are in charge, here.
And that is why democracy sucks. People are, in general, idiots. And if enough idiots get together, they can take away the rights of all sorts of minorities for their own benefit or profit, or just because they don't realise that it's really not that good of an idea. The consitution was specifically set up to disallow the majority from ever taking control of the minority - unfortunately we've ignored it for so long that this no longer occures. This was a shining example of a majority wanting to take away the rights of a minority for no other reason than because that minority offended the moral principles of the majority. luckily, the courts are still some what intact, and allowed them to go, since there was insufficient evidence of a crime having been committed.

Stop blaming the governent. They are simply doing what we told them to do.
Something that they are not allowed to do if the government would be alienating people's rights. The people are allowed to do whatever they want. It IS the government's fault that they decided to act on those comments, even though such actions go against the first and most fundamental legal document of this country.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
Yes, it says they teach ( brainwash) the people well on how to answer people.
So? Legal cases are almost never won on testimonials, and tey even more rarely make it to trial just on testimonials. This was dropped because there was no actual evidence, not just because some people say it didn't happen.

Just about everyone who "escape" these flds compounds confirms arranged under age and mutilple marriages.
So? Have heard any testimonials from ex mormons about what that church teaches? I know that probably 99% of it is false. Why so quick to accept these testimonials (after all, there's no possible way to ensure that they were telling the truth at all), especially when a government agency attempted to investigate these allegations and found insufficient evidence to press forward in their holy effort?
 

rocka21

Brother Rock
So? Legal cases are almost never won on testimonials, and tey even more rarely make it to trial just on testimonials. This was dropped because there was no actual evidence, not just because some people say it didn't happen.

And what to you would be " evidence"? wedding pictures of old men with teens?

So? Have heard any testimonials from ex mormons about what that church teaches? I know that probably 99% of it is false. Why so quick to accept these testimonials (after all, there's no possible way to ensure that they were telling the truth at all), especially when a government agency attempted to investigate these allegations and found insufficient evidence to press forward in their holy effort?
__________________

Of course, Its all the ones the escape that are liers. Not the poineer dress , bun in hair, plank stare into space, wemon who are " TOLD" what to say to people.

Sorry Bro. there is too much evidence over YEARS of escapes that tell what really goes on in these places. I am not talking about some " anti mormon " website, but the people that were actually in these FLDS compounds.
 
Top