Mr Spinkles
Mr
I get your point, jonny. It's a perfectly valid one. Your fears of the true motivation and consequences of this raid are plausible.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You're missing something here, Mrs. Cardero. Prior to 1862, polygamy was not illegal in America, and when the Latter-day Saints settled the Salt Lake Valley, what is now Utah was not even part of the United States. Despite the efforts of the Church leadership to clarify the doctrine, to explain rationale behind its practice and to point out that it was, in fact, not illegal, Americans from all religious backgrounds united against the Latter-day Saints. Anti-Mormon literature exposing the truth about polygamy and the degradation of Mormon women was everywhere. The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln, banned plural marriage. Since nobody had bothered allocating any funds to actually enforce it, though, this law ultimately had very little effect on the Latter-day Saints.I don't see where the government had anything to do with excommunicating those who choose to continue polygamy. I see the government solving problems to aid in those who have no say or cannot make choices on their own due to being raised with the beliefe that the girls (women) should be married to one man and bare his children.
I don't think the government has yet devised any weapons that can combat faith, they were probably just preparing for the worse.I'm curious about what people feel about the method by which the women and children were removed. I'm seeing pictures on the news now of something that looks like a tank, snipers hiding behind rocks, and SWAT teams with guns going into homes. One of the mothers said that her children had never seen a gun until they government came into their home and removed them from the home at gunpoint.
Overkill or lessons learned from Waco?
The reason I believe that the government is partially to blame in this mess is because the government has outlawed a religious tenant (polygamy) which, in and of itself, isn't harmful. If the relationships are between consenting adults who have chosen this lifestyle, then who cares.
Because, in the past, the government has gone after the lifestyle, these people have taken "refuge" in the desert, away from the view of society. This seclusion has enabled them to foster a culture where child brides and abuse become acceptable and the norm.
The reason why I disagree with the actions of Texas is because it will reinforce the need for them to hide from society instead of encourage them to come and join society.
Sorry if this isn't as eloquent as I'd like. I'm not feeling well and don't feel like thinking very hard. Hopefully you get the point.
Agreed.Katzpur said:This was not a matter of the government coming to anybody's aid. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never forced anybody into polygamy. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying the same is true with the polygamists in Texas. I am convinced there was some pretty widespread abuse going on in that compound. But you're implying that polygamy in and of itself is characterized by a controlling, manipulative man lording it over a bunch of brainwashed women and their abused children. All jonny's saying is that that's not the case.
Some of you may already be aware of this, but in case it is of interest here is a link to a website for "Banking on Heaven", a documentary about life within FLDS. It includes a trailer:
Banking on Heaven : Polygamy in the heartland of the American West : Over the Moon Productions
I'm watching the women in the FLDS church be interviewed right now. I don't need to watch a documentary made by that psycho lady. I'm watching the real thing.
You're missing something here, Mrs. Cardero. Prior to 1862, polygamy was not illegal in America, and when the Latter-day Saints settled the Salt Lake Valley, what is now Utah was not even part of the United States. Despite the efforts of the Church leadership to clarify the doctrine, to explain rationale behind its practice and to point out that it was, in fact, not illegal, Americans from all religious backgrounds united against the Latter-day Saints. Anti-Mormon literature exposing the truth about polygamy and the degradation of Mormon women was everywhere. The Morill Anti-Bigamy Act, signed into law in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln, banned plural marriage. Since nobody had bothered allocating any funds to actually enforce it, though, this law ultimately had very little effect on the Latter-day Saints.
In 1882, Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which declared polygamy to be a felony. The law made it impossible for anyone living in a polygamous family to hold public office, to serve on a jury or to vote. But that wasnt all. It wasnt just the civil rights of polygamist members of the Church that were affected, but the civil rights of all members of the Church who believed in the doctrine of plural marriage, regardless of whether or not they were participating in it. Adulterers and fornicators, on the other hand, had no such penalties applied and did not lose their rights. The Edmunds-Tucker Act, which was signed into law five years later (in 1887) effectively imposed fines of up to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years for anyone convicted of practicing polygamy. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the federal government to confiscate Church property in excess of $50,000.
This was not a matter of the government coming to anybody's aid. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never forced anybody into polygamy. Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying the same is true with the polygamists in Texas. I am convinced there was some pretty widespread abuse going on in that compound. But you're implying that polygamy in and of itself is characterized by a controlling, manipulative man lording it over a bunch of brainwashed women and their abused children. All jonny's saying is that that's not the case.
You are right. I am guessing all of the women who have escaped these places are lying psychos. And there was certainly nothing strange about the women who were interviewed on Larry King or the fact that they refused to answer questions about where their husbands were and how the husbands were dealing with this. I got the impression that this was a normal loving community. Hmmmmm......
And I've seen enough interviews with the lady who made that movie to believe that she is a psycho. I honestly can't stand her. Anyone who takes advantage of child abuse to push their movie is disgusting.
You're welcome. :foryou:Thank You for explaining it to me. Now I understand.
Well, you could be right; I don't know much about that woman. But I think it's still a good thing that their stories are heard. And I think it would be terrible if the women in Texas have their children taken away simply due to polygamy, especially since they most likely had no choice with regards to practicing polygamy in the first place.
It was strange though in my opinion. All of the women interviewed seemed so lifeless, like their souls and their personalities were maybe sucked away from them in this culture. Like they had been beaten down - they looked like the living dead. It seems like most women would be much more passionate and angry if they were in this position. I would be fighting tooth and nail to get my kids back if it was me. Anyway, such a sad situation.
I agree - I noticed the pictures of Warren Jeffs too. Creepy. I have also heard stories from members of other polygamous groups (Canada & Utah) that seemed to indicate that whatever went on at the YFZ ranch was different, and stemmed from Warren Jeffs twisted leadership.
it my be harsh of me, but I think the woman who gives her 15 year old daughter to a 50 year old man is just as guilty as the man.
I agree with you johnny. Due process must be observed according to both Texas and the US Constitutions for the accused adults(if any) and the custody of the children. Also the burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the state to establish probable cause, charging, bringing to trial or hearing, and proving beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases that abuse occurred. In civil cases it is usually preponderance of the evidence or 51% that a wrong occurred. In some states for civil it is clear and convincing evidence or the 75% rule that a wrong occured against the plaintiff. Reasonable doubt is about 98% that the accused is the guilty party and is the criminal standard across the board.Hopefully all the evidence that has been gathered doesn't become inadmissible in court.
ABC News: Polygamy Trail Leads to Colorado
This is why I've been arguing for due process.