FLDS found 100% innocent in courts

[texan1]

FLDS Innocent!!!

How easily brainwashed by the media some of you are - tsk tsk

Exactly. So I hope you look beyond the media for information on FLDS. I agree that Texas appeared to have handled this delicate situation in a very poor fashion, but FLDS is not some innocent little religious group. I encourage you to read some books on the subject (Like "Escape", "Under the Banner of Heaven", etc.) Also, here is a link to an The Hope Organization which helps the Lost Boys of polygamy (and there are LOTS of them), the child brides, and the women who have had their children taken away from them by FLDS after they testified in court against Warren Jeffs.

The "Lost Boys"

If people want to practice a particular religion or get involved in a polygamous relationship, I don't have a problem with it. But it should be their choice. These people do not have a choice. Why should a woman be denied the same rights as everyone else in the United States simply because she was born into this sect? Thank God I was not born into it.

 

[rocka21]

Exactly. So I hope you look beyond the media for information on FLDS. I agree that Texas appeared to have handled this delicate situation in a very poor fashion, but FLDS is not some innocent little religious group. I encourage you to read some books on the subject (Like "Escape", "Under the Banner of Heaven", etc.) Also, here is a link to an The Hope Organization which helps the Lost Boys of polygamy (and there are LOTS of them), the child brides, and the women who have had their children taken away from them by FLDS after they testified in court against Warren Jeffs.

The "Lost Boys"

If people want to practice a particular religion or get involved in a polygamous relationship, I don't have a problem with it. But it should be their choice. These people do not have a choice. Why should a woman be denied the same rights as everyone else in the United States simply because she was born into this sect? Thank God I was not born into it.

\\


BRAVO!:bow:

These FLDS will answer to God one day for there abuse. ( even if they got by texas).

did you happen to catch the oprah special on them? great show that day.


Shame on those lds on here that actually take up for these people.

 

[texan1]

Here is another link to more books of interest listed on the same website:

Suggested Reading

 

[Katzpur]

Here is another link to more books of interest listed on the same website:

Suggested Reading

I'm sure some of those books are quite factual. I would not, however, suggest "Under the Banner of Heaven." The problem with it is that it strongly implies a relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its more fanatical offshoots that simply doesn't exist. For example, the book focuses on brothers Dan and Ron Lafferty, who murdered Ron's wife and infant daughter, supposedly because God told them to. These two men were not LDS; they had been excommunicated from the Church long before they committed their horrible crime. But Jon Krakauer leads the reader to believe that is was their one-time association with Mormonism that precipitated the murders. There are sick, perverted people in every religion. To me, the fact that the LDS Church told these two losers to get lost is commendable. To Krakauer, the fact that they were at one time LDS was just a good opportunity to imply that mainstream Mormonism somehow was responsible for having turned out two demented murderers. And that's just one example.

 

[Aqualung]

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

I'm not a lawyer. And yet, it comforts me to know that the lawyers, no matter how much they wanted it, couldn't find enough evidence.

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.

Um... Interesting... I wonder why none of the professionals could find any.

 

[texan1]

Thank you for the input Katzpur. I am not LDS myself so I perhaps was not sensitive to the fact that that particular book might be misleading or offensive to Mormons. But in spite of that, I think it gives some good insight into FLDS. Before that book came out I never even knew such communities existed. There are several others to choose from though that include first hand accounts of life within these compounds.

By the way, if it makes you feel any better, I did not have any bad feelings towards Mormons after reading it. It was obvious that the Laffertys were complete nutcases.

 

[madhatter85]

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.


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?

the difference is we have nothing to hide, we do not live in secretive compounds and shun ourselves from the world.

us true LDS do not have anything to hide. all of our doctrines anyone can learn by asking or reading the church website.

What have the FLDS done for the world? where are thier humanitarian efforts? the problem is they cannot afford publicity because they know they will get caught doing illegal things.

 

[Aqualung]

the difference is we have nothing to hide, we do not live in secretive compounds and shun ourselves from the world.

Not wanting to associate with others does not mean that they have nothing to hide. Some might implicate our temple ordinances on these grounds, though. What are they doing to people in there?! Haven't you seen what those ex-mormons talk about happens in those temples?! Tear them down before it happens any more!

What have the FLDS done for the world?

Do people's rights depend on their productivity? For some reason I remember something like, "All men are created equal"... But no, my bad. It's "All people who productively contribute to the well being of the world are created equal". You're right. They don't deserve their basic rights.

 

[lilithu]

the difference is we have nothing to hide, we do not live in secretive compounds and shun ourselves from the world.

us true LDS do not have anything to hide. all of our doctrines anyone can learn by asking or reading the church website.

What have the FLDS done for the world? where are thier humanitarian efforts? the problem is they cannot afford publicity because they know they will get caught doing illegal things.

I understand your desire to not be associated with this group, but if you're so quick to dismiss their rights, there is nothing preventing others from doing the same thing to you.

 

[texan1]

I don't understand why people want to make FLDS their poster child for religious freedom or religious persecution. These are such oppressive communities. Why is protecting the right of "religious freedom" more important than protecting FLDS members' basic human rights?

 

[lilithu]

I don't understand why people want to make FLDS their poster child for religious freedom or religious persecution. These are such oppressive communities. Why is protecting the right of "religious freedom" more important than protecting FLDS members' basic human rights?

I don't understand why we have to choose between the two. What I'm advocating for is that they get the same rights that everyone does, which is fair legal process. I would advocate the same thing for anyone, even suspected serial murderers. If they're guilty, then they should be punished under the law, but let's follow the rule of law. As soon as you start making exceptions, no matter how "guilty" you think the person is, it opens the door to abuse.

 

[texan1]

I don't understand why we have to choose between the two.

You have to choose between the two if denying people rights is part of their religious beliefs and traditions (ie forcing people into marriage, denying women access to proper healthcare and education, kicking young boys out on the streets, etc.) It seems unfair to me that many wrongful actions described by former members over the years are not investigated simply because authorities don't want to infringe upon their "religious rights". Why should they be above the law?

What I'm advocating for is that they get the same rights that everyone does, which is fair legal process. I would advocate the same thing for anyone, even suspected serial murderers. If they're guilty, then they should be punished under the law, but let's follow the rule of law. As soon as you start making exceptions, no matter how "guilty" you think the person is, it opens the door to abuse.

Well yes, I certainly agree with this. And I think it is a shame how this was handled. Everything seemed to be done in an overly rushed manner. I hope they continue to investigate the situation on a case by case basis.

 

[lilithu]

You have to choose between the two if denying people rights is part of their religious beliefs and traditions (ie forcing people into marriage, denying women access to proper healthcare and education, kicking young boys out on the streets, etc.)

If there is proof of these things, they should be prosecuted. All I'm saying is that, like everyone else, they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[texan1]

If there is proof of these things, they should be prosecuted. All I'm saying is that, like everyone else, they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Absolutely. I can't disagree with you on that......but they shouldn't use me on any Jury panels because I would have a hard time giving them the benefit of the doubt based on everything I've read over the past few years.

 

[Doodlebug02]

I say good for them! And I mean that too. I literally mean that that is good for them. I am not being sarcastic. I may disagree with their beliefs and not believe that their prophet is legitimate but that doesn't mean that I don't care for them. I wish they'd come home to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but if they don't, there's not much I can do about it and it's not going to stop me from caring and loving my neighbors.

 

[doppelganger]

All that was determined is that CPS couldn't demonstrate that it had sufficient evidence to justify the high standard that must be met before doing an "emergency" seizure of someone's children. There is no determination that children were or were not abused, or that they aren't at risk of potential abuse in the future. Merely that CPS couldn't demonstrate evidence of an urgent or imminent threat of physical harm or sexual abuse to use these emergency powers.

Here's the statute at issue:

FAMILY CODE CHAPTER 262. PROCEDURES IN SUIT BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY TO PROTECT HEALTH AND SAFETY OF CHILD

 

[doppelganger]

BTW, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion effectively affirming the Court of Appeals' opinion vacating the seizure order in a per curiam opinion just yesterday.

There was a vigorous dissent as well.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Just my .02 worth, but I would like to point out that there is a HUGE difference between "Not Guilty" and "Innocent".

Please note - I am not making any assertion as to the outcome of the findings of the court - only that the distinction between the two terms is significant.

 

[doppelganger]

Also, you can read the Texas Supreme Court's per curiam opinion (and the concurring/dissenting opinion) here: The Supreme Court of Texas | Orders & Opinions

Having carefully examined the testimony at the adversary hearing and the other evidence before us, we are not inclined to disturb the court of appeals’ decision. On the record before us, removal of the children was not warranted. The Department argues without explanation that the court of appeals’ decision leaves the Department unable to protect the children’s safety, but the Family Code gives the district court broad authority to protect children short of separating them from their parents and placing them in foster care. The court may make and modify temporary orders “for the safety and welfare of the child,”[4] including an order “restraining a party from removing the child beyond a geographical area identified by the court.”[5] The court may also order the removal of an alleged perpetrator from the child’s home[6] and may issue orders to assist the Department in its investigation.[7] The Code prohibits interference with an investigation,[8] and a person who relocates a residence or conceals a child with the intent to interfere with an investigation commits an offense.[9]

While the district court must vacate the current temporary custody orders as directed by the court of appeals, it need not do so without granting other appropriate relief to protect the children, as the mothers involved in this proceeding concede in response to the Department’s motion for emergency relief. The court of appeals’ decision does not conclude the SAPCR proceedings.

Emphasis added.

 

[silvermoon383]

Wow, I just watched CNN's Nancy Grace's clip about the ruling and I am appalled at what I saw. I will never see anything that woman does ever again.