What if someone removed your children because your bishop was arrested?

[Fiannan]

First, in Brighams day, it was not uncommon for younger girls to marry. My grandma was married at age 12. HOWEVER, its not like it was a healthy thing and time has taught us that there are harms in OLDER men (MOST WELL OVER 30) becoming sexually involved (lets not forget using that word) with girls under the legal age. Second, its illegal now and we are instructed to obey the laws of the land. Period. Thirdly, the government IS right now, having issues with any religious organization that engages in inappropriate sexual practices. If you lived in an area where there is a predominant muslim community and had friends within those communities you would know that HERE in the U.S., LEGAL age is never ignored. POLYGAMY is not practiced by MUSLIMS in the US and only rarely outside the US. Just as we cannot regulate the teachings of any one's religion on what ultimately they think is truth and their moral code, WE CAN and SHOULD regulate behavior that is in danger or harming or causing harm to those that are helpless. We are talking about MINOR CHILDREN engaging in sexual practices with OLDER MEN. In order for them to protect those that are at risk and engaged in that behavior, they had to separate. I do not believe that their motives are anything other than just that.

You may find this article interesting about an 8 year old filing for divorce in a Muslim land:

Yemeni girl, 8, gets divorce after forced marriage

Now, back to the point, would you be happy if we merely legalized polygamy and mandated that marriages only occur when a woman is at least 18?

HOWEVER, its not like it was a healthy thing

Yes, 12 is really young but I think most women married at an older age. What, by the way, was unhealthy about it in the old days of let's say a 28 year old male marrying a 14 yera old female? Are you discussing modern social norms or public health issues?

[rosie321]

This whole matter is very unsettling for many reasons. Perhaps because there are no easy solutions.

1. The most troubling reason for me is the fact that free agency seems to have been removed from the young girls in the community who are "expected" to "spiritually marry" older men. The younger boys are kicked out seperated from their families. Abuse can take many forms and usually involves removing power from one person and giving it to another. These young girls are brought up in a way that robs them of their ability to choose and live up to their God given potential. Boys have everything taken away. It seems like there is no free agency just abuse and unrighteous dominion occuring.

2. The whole issue of polygamy and the way it is being twisted and portrayed by different groups both by those who practice it and don't is also a concern. When does it become alright to step over the line and judge someone elses culture? LDS, Muslims, Christians and others groups have instances of polygamy in its history. No one can deny it has happened in any of these histories. The D&C is one source that seems to indicate that it might be restored and needful. So I have difficulty with how many groups tend to downplay it or make it seem something so bad. If God truly did institute it or if it was used by worthy and honorable leaders such as Abraham then the way it would be used should be in a wholesome way. Not in a way that demeans another or satisfies anothers lusts. That which the Lord designs is done for the good. If God was not alright with polygamy the men of scriptures would not have been set up as revered spiritual men. These polygamist communities such as the one in Texas may believe that they are doing the right thing by the Lord. Based on the stories, I don't think that is the way it is being done in this community. It seems wrong. Perhaps it is because it is not being done by the proper authority? To what degree is it just because of the way it is being presented by the media and public opinion? Polygamy is a concept that is not in practice now by the LDS church but it was previously and may one day be reinstituted so yes we don't practice it now but I don't know that we can or should deny it. How do we effectively handle the issue? Polygamy is an issue that will never go away.

3. It bothers me to see how this whole Texas scenario has played out. It seems that the authorities defineately crossed some lines. It's really hard to watch any citizens rights being trampled on and the laws of the land bypassed for a greater good. Yet I can also understand the difficulty they have in dealing with a situation that seems to be harmful with no cooperation. When should authorities step in and intervene in peoples lives? What makes one way of living good and another bad? The behavior of some people could really cause harm but when does anyone have the right to step in and help? How do we assure that silent, agonized cries for help are not ignored? I am at a loss with this one. The goverments power should be limited. People should not have the right to tell another how to live their life. But then with the kids involved, our complicated legal system and imperfected world I'm don't know.

4. It really concerns me the way that the "sacred temple" of these people was desecrated. While these people may seem like fringe groups and so it's OK, when will they come to regular LDS temples because they fear something may be going on inside of them? Then the sacred and holy things could be made dirty and trivialized. While I'm sure they won't find anything it still bothers me to think of something that is supposed to be holy and sacred could be defiled by people who seek harm or profit. It also troubles me the way that others are now viewing the LDS temples. For those not LDS -No we don't have sex in the temples! (unless I missed that brainwashing session). Seeing the holy place of these people "defiled" slightly defiles the LDS temples in my mind. I can't help but think what must go through the minds of non-LDS who already think we are a cult and cannot seperate the church of now from the church of the past.

5. Our culture is tolerant and accepting of adultery, adult pornography, fornication, homosexuality, living together, and other alternative ways of living. Why go against a group of people such as this yet ignore and accept many other lifestyles which cause greater harm? It does seem that the real threat here is religion and personal freedom. This Texas group seems to not need the government or be prone to go its way. Is this why the government has stepped in so vehemently?

[prisonchaplain]

I saw with my own eyes the broadcast on television of ATF agents lighting the building on fire with a blowtorch mounted on the top of an armoured vehicle.

Your above quote is frankly full of bull.

The ATF burned those people. I don't know why they did, but I saw them do it.

If it doesn't make sense...as you readily admit...well then, it doesn't make sense. Ponder at least that this may well have been a doomsday cult, bent on martyrdom. Jones' sure was. These conspiracy theories that the U.S. government desires to burn religious people is beyond bizarre, imho.

It was this very event that made me realize how potentially corrupt things are. There could be no doubt that the ATF did it. The footage showed them showering the building with flames.

Angles, smoke and mirrors. I don't believe something because it appears that way on TV. I don't pretend to know enough to say that law enforcement did not make some mistakes. However, I am convinced that Koresh and his top leaders decided to go out in a ball of glory, rather than allow what happened in TX this week happen to them.

They also broadcast footage of the exchange of gunfire that killed the ATF agents and it was clear that they were shooting at one another.

-a-train

Who shot first was an open question. One of the ATF agents supposedly said one of theirs may have shot at a rapidly mvoing animal or something, and thus started the volley of gunfire. But, everyone else said no, that the Davidians had fired first.

[rosie321]

6. Was it really necessary to remove 400+ innocent children and the mothers who did no crime? Are the children in a better place? Are the mothers really guilty? I feel for anyone who will have to be a judge or juror in this matter.

7. What was the Baptist involvement in this? Was it just the use of the buses? I would hope that the Baptist leaders would be more concerned about the way they are being used and portrayed in this matter rather then in trying to demean another group or prove them wrong. They should make it clear where they stand on this matter before the tables turn on them. Freedoms and rights could be taken away from them one day also. They need to make a clear stand.

Hopefully they can create a climate of genuine love and care. I understand they will never accept the lifestyle or beliefs of this group they need to be careful of how involved they become in going against this group of people. The swords they draw on another may one day be used against them-especially where the government is concerned.

[madjen38]

WHY are we here defending something that is abhorrently wrong???? I just dont understand this? Have ANY of you been a part of a community like this??? Do you KNOW anyone that has/is? Until you understand the generations of indoctrination, living with confirmed pedofiles masking their illness as "God's word" and becoming so desensitized to what is acceptable and not acceptable, you have no right to defend it and frankly, there is NO defence. And then intellectually challenging its rights is just absurd. If their mothers are willing to remove their children and agree that they will not allow their daughters to "marry" until their daughters can do so at an age of legal consent, than they should be taken away. Until poligamy is either allowed by the legal framework of our government or in the second coming if Christ restores it as an ordinace, then it the law should be protected and individuals punished for participating. Period. ESPECIALLY when it is forced on CHILDREN, not of an age or maturity to consent. My beef, help the mothers too. Work with the them, help them, protect them. They are victims as well!

So, because you think that someday we are all going to live on a compound in our eternal state and have many wives, that we should protect this sick and distorted practice??? Oh my word!

As to their "sacred" temple being desecrated... THERE WAS A CONSUMATION BED IN THE TEMPLE! How many of those acts of pedophylia took place in that "sacred" temple. Again, if you think that the US government is going to come in and do the same to our temples, what do we have in them, what practices do we have that are illegal? How do we live that is NOT within the laws of the land and what do we have to be afraid of??? When a child, yes CHILD is in harms way, there is nothing that should be compromised to protect the safety of that child. Nothing!

[rosie321]

No I can't say that I do understand or appreciate the way in which these people are stated to live. I have a difficult time with such a culture mainly because of the way it seems to be set up. Robbing people of agency and innocence or administering unrighteous dominion is never right. This culture does not operate under the way I believe the Lord would want it to be done.

Environments can be created which can rob people of their agency, self esteem and other blessings. I understand all too well the temporal and eternal fear that these people could be living under. That's what makes this such a difficult issue to deal with. After many years of having dealt with an environment of fear and control and being removed from it, I cannot say the answers are any plainer or easier to find. There is heartache all the way around. Wickedness was never happiness is much easier to understand in this context.

I see the importance of individuals right's and the protection of liberty. This is a vitally important topic too. Much diligence must be given to protect them or else we could have unfettered control such as what Hitler exercised. The ramifications of Hitler's programming still lives on today in some German Laws and he created immeasurable harm to many people who were different.

LDS have as article of faith these two beliefs that help to illustrate the challenge in this matter.

#11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. Shouldn't this group be allowed to worship as they wish? Are they exempt?

#12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. What happens when man's law contradicts God's Law in a person's mind? Who should win? Have the people on this compound committed crimes? If so where are the charges and the proof? They have been removed for over a week. If it is proved that these men are marrying underage girls or commiting statuatory rape on minors then they have broken the law and should be punished accordingly. But to date the only people that have been dealt with are the women and children. Not only have they had to endure trauma the system has inflicted on them by pulling them from the home, they will probably all wind up back in the environment because of the way that this situation has been handled from the start. If they are being abused now, how much worse will it be later do you think, after all the dust has settled and these women and children are returned home? The abuse will only be greater:(

[ruthiechan]

I fear that more harm is being done to these poor children being removed from their homes by force like this and being prevented from contacting either parent. I'm sure there must be something illegal or against their human rights or something. The removal of a child who has complained of abuse is one thing but the removal of all children who have made no such complaint just seems so totally wrong. Couldn't they have at least been removed along with their mothers? Do the powers that be really believe that women have so little love for their own children that they will coach them to lie about sexual abuse?

Yes. Mothers would tell their children to lie. And the children will. I have seen this happen on a smaller scale without polygamy being involved.

And yes because other children are not talking does nto mean that they are not just as abused.

[a-train]

I do not believe that for a second - one of the reasons is, there was a child that was stabbed to death in the compound while all of this was going on. The ATF reported hearing systematic gunfire, and they believed a mass suicided was going on. If it were only gun injuries that resulted - then the argument could be made that the AFT inflicted the injuries. The fact that a child was stabbed INSIDE while this was happening adds credence to the ATF claims that a mass suicide was taking place ,and they did the right thing in trying to stop it in my opinion.

You can believe whatever you want, but the ATF lighting the building on fire with a blowtorch from the top of an armored vehicle was broadcast and replayed on network television. There was no mistaking it.

-a-train

[skalenfehl]

Blow torch....you mean a flame thrower?

[prisonchaplain]

You can believe whatever you want, but the ATF lighting the building on fire with a blowtorch from the top of an armored vehicle was broadcast and replayed on network television. There was no mistaking it.

-a-train

Fiannan has talked some here about propaganda, and I see it working both ways. You repeatedly say there was no mistaking it. Yet, there certainly was. Opinions remain varied on the Waco incident, with most believing the government report.

I believe it was Brave New World that had the line, "Repeat a lie 64,000 times and it becomes truth." You may be right. It just might be that the Branch Davidians were an innocent minority religious group being persecuted by an evil, anti-Christian government. But my experience with law enforcement people says no--these agents did not knowingly intend to set fire to a building full of children.

BTW, neither of you seem willing to respond to the report that there was plenty of evidence of flammatory accelerants throughout the compound in Waco.

[Moksha]

I think Fiannan mentioned in a previous post that his fear was that the children would be "de-programmed" in such a way that would pit them against the LDS faith as a whole. I must admit, as much as I want those people to be safe from abuse I was scared of that too.

I think the main LDS Church would be the ideal group to do the non-polygamy deprogramming. They basically have the same beliefs, albeit brought up to speed with the 20th Century and more mainstream thought.

[rosie321]

I think the main LDS Church would be the ideal group to do the non-polygamy deprogramming. They basically have the same beliefs, albeit brought up to speed with the 20th Century and more mainstream thought While the LDS church might be the group most able to understand the culture of these people and respect them, the church would be wise to avoid any deprogramming efforts. Deprogramming is a bad prospect. First FLDS follow different ideas. They have gone their own way and so would most likely take offense at any efforts of "help" from the renegade LDS who do not operate under the proper guidance. Secondly, we would be robbing them of the opportunity to exercise free agency. Third, with the varying opinions and beliefs of the members expressed just on these boards, what plan of deprogramming would be used that would work? Fourth, it wasn't that long ago that members of the LDS church practiced polygamy. This is a point of grave concern to many outside the church. LDS efforts would not be appreciated. Joseph Smith as well as other leaders are seen as using shaping religion to fill their lusts. Women are viewed as slaves to the men. Emma's disdain towards the idea of polygamy feeds this notion. There are many outside believers who want to deprogram LDS members to this day because they believe members "cannot see" the truth and are "being led down satan's path." Many will ask what if this policy were to be restored in the LDS church now. 5th The members of this Texas group would most likely be ashamed of the way we have turned from polygamy and given into 'earthly' pressures rather than doing what is expected from an eternal perspective. Sixth, the "deprogrammers" will most likely face antagonism and will be seen as the enemy. That is something that the LDS church should stay away from. What good could come from it? The victims will not be helped if they are turned away from a source which in theory should help them the most.

[rosie321]

I think the main LDS Church would be the ideal group to do the non-polygamy deprogramming. They basically have the same beliefs, albeit brought up to speed with the 20th Century and more mainstream thought

While the LDS church might be the group most able to understand the culture of these people and respect them, the church would be wise to avoid any deprogramming efforts. Deprogramming is a bad prospect. First FLDS follow different ideas. They have gone their own way and so would most likely take offense at any efforts of "help" from the renegade LDS who do not operate under the proper guidance. Secondly, we would be robbing them of the opportunity to exercise free agency. Third, with the varying opinions and beliefs of the members expressed just on these boards, what plan of deprogramming would be used that would work? Fourth, it wasn't that long ago that members of the LDS church practiced polygamy. This is a point of grave concern to many outside the church. LDS efforts would not be appreciated. Joseph Smith as well as other leaders are seen as using shaping religion to fill their lusts. Women are viewed as slaves to the men. Emma's disdain towards the idea of polygamy feeds this notion. There are many outside believers who want to deprogram LDS members to this day because they believe members "cannot see" the truth and are "being led down satan's path." Many will ask what if this policy were to be restored in the LDS church now. 5th The members of this Texas group would most likely be ashamed of the way we have turned from polygamy and given into 'earthly' pressures rather than doing what is expected from an eternal perspective. Sixth, the "deprogrammers" will most likely face antagonism and will be seen as the enemy. That is something that the LDS church should stay away from. What good could come from it? The victims will not be helped if they are turned away from a source which in theory should help them the most.

[skippy740]

You make a lot of good points.

Here's my own view of why Polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS church.

First, the Church already had plenty of persecution BEFORE they began to practice Polygamy.

When the Church went west to the Utah Valley, they petitioned the U.S. for statehood.

With so much persecution, it stands to reason that some kind of cessation would have to be made by the church as a material gesture (and give in to the powers of men that govern the nation).

How about a practice that the Lord instituted for the later purpose of giving it up to gain statehood in the U.S. and future stability and prosperity to His Church and its members?

Just my thoughts.

[a-train]

Fiannan has talked some here about propaganda, and I see it working both ways. You repeatedly say there was no mistaking it. Yet, there certainly was. Opinions remain varied on the Waco incident, with most believing the government report.

I believe it was Brave New World that had the line, "Repeat a lie 64,000 times and it becomes truth." You may be right. It just might be that the Branch Davidians were an innocent minority religious group being persecuted by an evil, anti-Christian government. But my experience with law enforcement people says no--these agents did not knowingly intend to set fire to a building full of children.

BTW, neither of you seem willing to respond to the report that there was plenty of evidence of flammatory accelerants throughout the compound in Waco.

I've read about the lanterns and all the flammables in the building. Certainly. The question comes to whether the Davidians burned themselves or not. I also read that some of the Davidian survivors claimed the flames shooting from the vehicle were the result of the vehicle's ram into the building through a lantern. Remember, the place had no electricity after it had been cut off.

If you watch the video, the vehicle has a battering ram or boom on it. It is just a long pole or stick mounted from the top of the vehicle. They drive it into the wall and as they back out flames are coming from the end of the ram. It is dripping or showering with flames that are going into the building.

This is not a huge government conspiracy theory. It is simply what is on the video.

Now whether those flames came from some sort of torch placed on the end of that ram by the ATF or whether the ram struck through the flammable liquid in a lantern as the Davidians said, it still remains that the ATF efforts are what lit the building on fire. It still remains that they simply sat there and let the building burn while disallowing the fire department to put out the fire.

Perhaps driving an armored vehicle into a building full of women and children was a bad idea??????????!?!?!!!?!?!?

This may have been accidental. But it still means the ATF lit the building and not the Davidians.

The trouble is we have a real military attitude. Any good detective could have withheld from having such a siege in the first place and arrested Koresh on the street when he was in town.

A big stand off occurred in my neighborhood a few years ago. It went on for hours while a father 'held his own family hostage'. Armored vehicles, lights, loud speakers, all that stuff came out. They could have easily left the man alone until he was unarmed on the street. It would have only taken two officers in a patrol car to pick him up.

I think a lot of national attention can really put law enforcement in overdrive. Imagine if your job today was suddenly on the international news and the whole world was waiting to see how you handle some life or death situation.

-a-train

[Shell72]

You make a lot of good points.

Here's my own view of why Polygamy is no longer practiced by the LDS church.

First, the Church already had plenty of persecution BEFORE they began to practice Polygamy

When the Church went west to the Utah Valley, they petitioned the U.S. for statehood.

With so much persecution, it stands to reason that some kind of cessation would have to be made by the church as a material gesture (and give in to the powers of men that govern the nation).

How about a practice that the Lord instituted for the later purpose of giving it up to gain statehood in the U.S. and future stability and prosperity to His Church and its members?

Just my thoughts.

I respectfully disagree. Joseph Smith started the LDS movement and he also started polygamy within the LDS simutaneously - there could have been no persecution of the church BEFORE ( as you stated) polygamy as it all started at the same time..

[Fiannan]

Fiannan has talked some here about propaganda, and I see it working both ways. You repeatedly say there was no mistaking it. Yet, there certainly was. Opinions remain varied on the Waco incident, with most believing the government report.

I believe it was Brave New World that had the line, "Repeat a lie 64,000 times and it becomes truth." You may be right. It just might be that the Branch Davidians were an innocent minority religious group being persecuted by an evil, anti-Christian government. But my experience with law enforcement people says no--these agents did not knowingly intend to set fire to a building full of children.

BTW, neither of you seem willing to respond to the report that there was plenty of evidence of flammatory accelerants throughout the compound in Waco.

At least now the US government admits to spiking unsuspecting people's food or drinks with LSD and seeing what the reactions would be (it was all part of a program to see if there were means to brainwash large segments of a population).

Strange, the government still refuses to admit that the reason St. George has a really high cancer rate (as opposed to the rest of the state of Utah) is due to all the radioactive fallout from nuke tests in the Nevada desert. If the winds were towards California, tests were called off, if they were towards Utah, full speed ahead. I am not implying an anti-Mormon motive here -- just one based on pragmatism (big population centers v. smaller ones) but still, no admissions and no compensations for the victims.

[Hemidakota]

I respectfully disagree. Joseph Smith started the LDS movement and he also started polygamy within the LDS simutaneously - there could have been no persecution of the church BEFORE ( as you stated) polygamy as it all started at the same time..

It started when the young Joseph made mentioned of his vision of Deity to the area preachers.

[Canuck Mormon]

I respectfully disagree. Joseph Smith started the LDS movement and he also started polygamy within the LDS simutaneously - there could have been no persecution of the church BEFORE ( as you stated) polygamy as it all started at the same time..

Where's your reference for this? And remember, any links to anti sites will be deleted.

[Hemidakota]

July 1843, Polygamy was authorized by the Prophet Joseph Smith.

[UintahJack]

I am very concerned about this Texas overreaction to a probably bogus telephone call that started it all in the first place. Don't get me wrong, if child abuse is going on, where young underage girls are forced into marriages and sex, something needs to be done about it. But, just based on a phone call, authorities can't go in and round up 400+ children and tear them from their mothers. I'm not a lawyer, but where is the due process? If I was one of those parents I would get a good lawyer and sue Texas for a gazillion dollars for all the mental anguish and trauma they have caused to these children and their mothers.

Isn't this reminiscent of the persecution heaped on the LDS (not FLDS) church over polygamy in the late 19th century? If you read about what happened then you will see that, much like today, the media whipped up the public back East into a frenzy against the "Mormons." I know the polygamy back then was much different than it is now for the FLDS. The LDS church wasn't all about polygamy like it seems to be with the FLDS, only a small percentage of the members actually practiced it.

Still, don't believe all that you see on the media about the FLDS. I usually like Fox News, but their reporting has even been very inflammatory and one-sided. It is just big news so they're soaking it for all they can like all the other news, especially cable news. Texas authorities, investigate the FLDS if you want in the proper way, but all their rights should be respected and treat them as innocent until proven guilty.

I had a few polygamous ancestors, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to live that way. The men who do it in today's world must have huge egos. I can't handle my one wife and wouldn't want more. Still, I personally think if mature people want to do it in a responsible way, not preying on young girls or taking advantage of them, that it should be legal. In the LDS church today it isn't allowed, so end of the discussion if you are LDS. But, if you aren't LDS if they are going to allow same sex marriages in some states why not polygamous marriages too? If a woman was crazy enough to want more than one husband let her do that too. What's the difference? Just my two cents. :)

[ruthiechan]

I had a few polygamous ancestors, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to live that way. The men who do it in today's world must have huge egos. I can't handle my one wife and wouldn't want more. Still, I personally think if mature people want to do it in a responsible way, not preying on young girls or taking advantage of them, that it should be legal. In the LDS church today it isn't allowed, so end of the discussion if you are LDS. But, if you aren't LDS if they are going to allow same sex marriages in some states why not polygamous marriages too? If a woman was crazy enough to want more than one husband let her do that too. What's the difference? Just my two cents. :)

I am inclined to agree with you.

But, even homosexuals reject polygamy. Why? Because they know that it is more likely that people will accept homosexual monogamous couples than any sort of polygamous relationship.

[Moksha]

Hopefully the one option that will not be on the table is relocating the children to Camp Jejune at Guantanamo Bay.

[Shell72]

Where's your reference for this? And remember, any links to anti sites will be deleted.

My reference? The History of the LDS.

It has nothing to do with anti-mormon sites it has to do with the facts - even the pro-mormon and neutral sites attest to this.

[Fiannan]

I am inclined to agree with you.

But, even homosexuals reject polygamy. Why? Because they know that it is more likely that people will accept homosexual monogamous couples than any sort of polygamous relationship.

Sad, that just shows how far away from original Biblical principles our society has drifted.