What is the answer?

[tking]

This is such a terrible situation. The children and the mothers are suffering, but at the same time, what amounts to pedophilia and molestation can't be allowed to remain. Bless their hearts.

POLYGAMY CHILDREN (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/14/polygamist.retreat/?iref=hpmostpop)

[Tallen]

Isn't that just sick. The state is the last place I would want my kids..., especially after having dealt with them for the last several years with ours. And what can you do, leave those kids where they are being abused, if they are being abused? This is absolutely a no good situation, and one that if there was a "Christian" organization to step up to the plate I am sure they would be rejected because of the "faith" of those involved. Can't make unnessary waves, the press would have a field day. And all the while the kids are the ones that pay the price for man's stupidity and sin.

Why would they let this go until there are 416 kids to deal with?

[JBaker45]

Yeah, it would have been better if the feds had nipped this in the bud a long time ago.

[travelah]

Well, I will probably regret this but something stinks to high heaven about this whole mess. I have grown weary of the child rape charges being made. Now by that I mean the notion that marriage at the age of 14, 15, 16 or so is not rape. It may be inappropriate in our modern culture however many scholars have guessed that the mother of our LORD was a young teenager when she was betrothed to Joseph. It is only in our modern culture that marriage was pushed to late teens, twenties or even later. Having said that, there is a LOT wrong with this situation, polygamy being one thing in particular. At the same time, I think something is wrong with the whole story. There is a great deal of sensationalism and innuendo being mentioned all over the media.

The cultists follow a false religion but we should be cautious when we have biased news media making open charges of child rape regarding marriage of teenagers based on religious grounds. We can never know when that bias will turn on us.

[tking]

Well, I will probably regret this but something stinks to high heaven about this whole mess. I have grown weary of the child rape charges being made. Now by that I mean the notion that marriage at the age of 14, 15, 16 or so is not rape. It may be inappropriate in our modern culture however many scholars have guessed that the mother of our LORD was a young teenager when she was betrothed to Joseph. It is only in our modern culture that marriage was pushed to late teens, twenties or even later. Having said that, there is a LOT wrong with this situation, polygamy being one thing in particular. At the same time, I think something is wrong with the whole story. There is a great deal of sensationalism and innuendo being mentioned all over the media.

The cultists follow a false religion but we should be cautious when we have biased news media making open charges of child rape regarding marriage of teenagers based on religious grounds. We can never know when that bias will turn on us.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying. And yes, there is much wrong with this cult, but I'm kinda like you on the marriage and rape charges. Of course, if these girls are forced to marry, well then that's a different thing. What I didn't quite understand was why the age cut-off of the children allowed to return to the cult home with their mothers vs. being kept behind. It was something like 5 years old, I think. My thought was that the older children maybe should be interviewed and such, but these little ones have no idea what's going on, and they are probably terrified being separated from their moms. To me that was an extreme that shouldn't have happened. If nothing else, those mothers should've been allowed to stay with the younger ones.

GS posted an article on his board about the "lost boys" that had been kicked out over the years, which was another strange aspect of this place. If you do a google on "lost boys" + "Jeffs" there are several articles about them. It's bizarre all the way around.

[tking]

Why would they let this go until there are 416 kids to deal with?

I think that's a very good question.

[Tallen]

I hear ya Trav. The more I hear about this cult the more I am leery of the State's intentions. I think we do have a Constitutional right to pursue our God in a manner that our conscience dictates, even though we may not agree with a particular sect or cult the Constitution does protect that right. On the other hand, if there is child abuse going on within this group it should have been handled a long time ago instead of letting it go on for eight years. If it is a matter of people sleeping with each other and calling each other wife and husband, then leave them alone. Having a wife that is 13, 14, 15 years of age is more of a cultural understanding and you are right, we tend to push that off into preferring an older age. If it is a matter of real child abuse, rape and slavery then act quickly before it escalates to 416 children.

We do not need another Wacko where the children are murdered by the state.

[travelah]

I agree with both of you ..... I am just leery of what I have heard so far in this case .... something smells here.

[tking]

I agree with both of you ..... I am just leery of what I have heard so far in this case .... something smells here.

Well it's definitely a little odd that a whole community has risen up and somehow no authorities were wary of it until now, due to an anonymous-type phone call.

I'm not real trusting of the government anyway, when it comes to anything that has to do with religion or taxes, soooo.....

[Tallen]

Having dealt with the State Of Michigan with my kids, I am extremely wary of them. That is not to reflect upon all of the people that we dealt with, some are very sincere and loving people. Some are inept, bumbling, control freaks, that want to own you and push their ideals upon you. The worst case was from one social worker, that didn't have any kids at all, and gave me problems because of the means of discipline we use in our house. We don't normally spank kids, unless they have done something severely wrong that would endanger them or another person. That was an issue and she related it to our "religion". Instead, we will make them take time outs and give extra chores. I was told the giving chores to kids amounts to slave labor and is an antiquated belief out of medieval times, by this worker, and that the time outs is what we should be doing. She gave me trouble in court on several occasions because she felt my "character was overbearing and not submissive to her demands." I was very vocal in court on the behalf of the kids, I represented my wife and I without an attorney, and wouldn't let the social workers push stupid ideas off on us. The original judge was very sympathetic to us, and thought we were reasonable and loving parents to the kids. The overall testimony of others involved with us was very favorable to my wife and I, and they had went to the states ombudsman on several occasions on our behalf because of this social worker. What it amounts to is that I am very leery of liberal thinking in these roles, they tend to want to control conservative ideals and mistrust thinking people. Their ideas are the right ones in their eyes. They mistrust everyone else who doesn't buy into their beliefs. Really, it is heartbreaking.

[tking]

I absolutely don't trust the State when it comes to this. Here in Oklahoma we've had a number of deaths from child abuse where the reports weren't acted on. We even had one instance where the judge gave a child back to the parents WHILE SHE WAS IN CASTS ON BOTH LEGS from abuse...it was only a few days until they killed her. For the most part, the state is overworked, undermanned, and is filled with people who fall into either one extreme category or another when it comes to childrens' and parents' rights. On the one hand, you have those who will give a child back to their biological parent even after the parent has been convicted of abuse, drug use, and spent time in the pen...simply because they are the biological parents. On the other hand, you have those that think any kind of structure or discipline is detrimental to the child because they need to be able to "express" themselves or they won't become well-rounded adults. Granted, there are a few who have enough sense and wisdom to do some good, but they are SO few and far between.

What I shudder to think about is the state of Texas being suddenly in charge of over 400 extra children in the system. There is no way that can be good, even if they had the best child welfare department in the country.

I keep seeing these women at the "community" showing the dining areas, the sewing rooms, the kitchens, the bedrooms, etc., and I find myself thinking that it all looks very safe and peaceful. Of course, the polygamy part is just flat wrong and shouldn't be allowed, but I'm left wondering if this is all a setup aimed at religion in general.

Sigh...this is just a mess.

[Tallen]

I don't know how many of the things that I have shared with you about all we went through to get the grand-kids, but one of the lowest parts of the ordeal was when a little boy was murdered by the hands of adoptive parents who found him difficult. The social worker that placed that kid in that situation was our worker. She treated Sally and I like we were enemies of the State and boasted how great these foster parents were. She wanted to take some of the kids and put them into foster care because we had too many, I suspected it would have been these folks the way she talked. She sat in my kitchen at my kitchen table and boasted how she found these folks and they were being unjustly accused of the murder. It turned out that the "mom" took a hammer and beat the kid to death, it took several days for the kid to die and they never sought help for him. The "dad" helped cover it up. It turned out she never reacted to complaints by teachers and others, who often saw the abuse of this little boy. I hope I never encounter this woman again.

[tking]

I don't know how many of the things that I have shared with you about all we went through to get the grand-kids, but one of the lowest parts of the ordeal was when a little boy was murdered by the hands of adoptive parents who found him difficult. The social worker that placed that kid in that situation was our worker. She treated Sally and I like we were enemies of the State and boasted how great these foster parents were. She wanted to take some of the kids and put them into foster care because we had too many, I suspected it would have been these folks the way she talked. She sat in my kitchen at my kitchen table and boasted how she found these folks and they were being unjustly accused of the murder. It turned out that the "mom" took a hammer and beat the kid to death, it took several days for the kid to die and they never sought help for him. The "dad" helped cover it up. It turned out she never reacted to complaints by teachers and others, who often saw the abuse of this little boy. I hope I never encounter this woman again.


Oh no, oh no! How does a person like that get to be a case worker? How?? I know we're supposed to forgive, and I know that anyone can repent, but in my heart of hearts, I have to fight to keep from thinking about a special place in hell reserved for people like these "parents" and the case worker. God help me.

[Tallen]

Oh no, oh no! How does a person like that get to be a case worker? How?? I know we're supposed to forgive, and I know that anyone can repent, but in my heart of hearts, I have to fight to keep from thinking about a special place in hell reserved for people like these "parents" and the case worker. God help me.

The good thing..., she no longer is a case worker after the case went to trial. The bad thing, she was moved to another department where she is invovled in determining benefits for foster kids. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_19_4.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZSYYYYYYYYUS)









http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZSYYYYYYYYUS (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb098_ZSYYYYYYYYUS&utm_id=7926)

[tking]

So the State of Texas has custody (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080419/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat) for the time being. What must these children be going through?

There was at least an astute observation by a psychiatrist in relation to how they will react out in the world:

But Dr. Bruce Perry, a psychiatrist who has studied children in cults, testified that the girls will not refuse marriages because they are indoctrinated to believe disobedience will lead to their damnation.

The renegade Mormon sect's belief system "is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian," he said.

Perry acknowledged that many adults at the ranch are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy. When asked whether the belief system really endangered the older boys or young children, Perry said, "I have lost sleep over that question."

He also conceded that the children, taught from birth to believe that contact with the outside world will lead to eternal damnation, would suffer if placed in traditional foster care. (bolding mine)

In some ways, I can almost see this as the dilemma those who leave the RCC face. When one is taught that to be "outside" equals damnation of their souls, I would think the psychological and spiritual trauma would be frightening, to say the least, and maybe even paralyzing. Imagine facing that as a child!! Don't get me wrong, I know God is more powerful than all of that, and He will bring peace, but it would be a mistake to ignore the ramifications if these young ones aren't dealt with in a special way.

In watching an interview with some of the "lost boys," as well as reading about them, one of the first things that happens is drug and alcohol abuse because they simply have no skills to cope with the outside world. They are easy prey, and they are very confused, understandably so.

This situation needs a LOT of prayer. Bless their hearts. And the sad part is that the adults, for the most part, probably believe they ARE doing the right thing in God's eyes. The father of lies casts a wide net. :medium-smiley-134:

[JBaker45]

I wonder how many more of these groups are still "out there" that we don't know about yet.

[Tallen]

The father of lies casts a wide net.

That's the truth.

[tking]

I wonder how many more of these groups are still "out there" that we don't know about yet.

I shudder to think about that. I'd never even heard of the FLDS until this, but apparently they were brought to the forefront a few years ago with the "lost boys" information. People are always looking for something, and these con artists life Jeffs know that. It's heartbreaking.

[travelah]

and the plot thickens with intrigue ...

The stench is growing around this "case" (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-call_19tex.ART.State.Edition2.461730e.html)

[JBaker45]

and the plot thickens with intrigue ...

The stench is growing around this "case" (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-call_19tex.ART.State.Edition2.461730e.html)
Wow.. How about that.

Thanks Trav.

[tking]

and the plot thickens with intrigue ...

The stench is growing around this "case" (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-call_19tex.ART.State.Edition2.461730e.html)

I've been hearing about this on the news. What I'm not clear about is whether this woman had some real knowledge of the FLDS compounds or if she was just going on things she'd read or heard. Obviously, she has some problems, but it would be interesting to find out whether or not she was ever involved in one of these places.

[tking]

Okay, so they interviewed some of the mothers and one man this morning on the Today show. I gotta say, these people are either very good actors or the public is being misled in many ways. The man stated unequivocally that he hadn't known of ANY 13-year-old girls who'd been pregnant in the 4 years he'd been there. He also stated that he would never be involved in anything like that. Now, granted, he didn't directly answer the question about whether it was allowed, but he did answer directly about the pregnancies.

Another thing that really got my goat was the question put forth to the women about their "garb" and their hairstyles? Are you kidding me?! We're going to assume illegal activities because of their hairdos and style of dress? Sheesh...if they're going to go that route, they can come over here about 30 miles from where I live. There's a Mennonite community where some of them still wear traditional dresses and have their hair under the little lace hat things (I don't know what those are officially called). The men also still keep the beards trimmed a certain way and wear traditional black clothing.

I'm beginning to wonder a LOT about all of this. I know that polygamy is wrong, and as I understand it, it's also illegal. But that doesn't seem to be the main "wrong" being given attention.

One of the ladies said the state was the one abusing these children because of the way they were being treated. She also elaborated that when they raided the place, they put them all on cots, with no privacy for the ones with young babies, and they were escorted to and from the porta-potties every single time they went so that there was no privacy even in the basic human functions. That does sound a little extreme.

These ladies also stated they would leave the community if that was what the state demanded in order for them to have their children.

Maybe I'm a soft-sell, though. I dunno. It's just something about these ladies and the look in their eyes and their behavior.

OTOH, maybe they're all just very good liars. I have no idea.

[Tallen]

Well for sure the state is hypocritical in this. A woman can have children by ten different men, and although never married to any of them they will give their support to them. Even promoting that lifestyle by giving more money to folks that have more kids. So what's the difference if the father is there taking care of the kids and supporting them, morally that is? Because they live together and are married is cause for them to take away the kids?

The women make me think about the old "holiness" movement in the Reformed church, especially the Wesleyan and Puritan churches. The women all wore bonnets and long hair done up in a similar fashion, long dresses and pretty much look identical to these women. But the women in the holiness movement could tell you why they dressed that way, it was a matter of being modest and keeping men from lusting after them. They saw it as removing an opportunity and causing men to sin. There was some good reasoning in this, although I am not promoting women to look like that. These women seemed ignorant of why they are dressed in the manner they dress.

An interview on the Today show is to be asked, "how do you feel about that" in sixteen different ways and sitting for five seconds after each question with a puzzled look on your face saying nothing. They would be better off not going on the show at all and making a tape that they send out to the press that answers questions people might have, if they want press coverage.

I have made my mind up, I will never be interviewed via a satellite connection on a morning talk show. They can send a real reporter out if they ever need to talk to me. :big_teeth_2:

[tking]

Well for sure the state is hypocritical in this. A woman can have children by ten different men, and although never married to any of them they will give their support to them. Even promoting that lifestyle by giving more money to folks that have more kids. So what's the difference if the father is there taking care of the kids and supporting them, morally that is? Because they live together and are married is cause for them to take away the kids?

The women make me think about the old "holiness" movement in the Reformed church, especially the Wesleyan and Puritan churches. The women all wore bonnets and long hair done up in a similar fashion, long dresses and pretty much look identical to these women. But the women in the holiness movement could tell you why they dressed that way, it was a matter of being modest and keeping men from lusting after them. They saw it as removing an opportunity and causing men to sin. There was some good reasoning in this, although I am not promoting women to look like that. These women seemed ignorant of why they are dressed in the manner they dress.

An interview on the Today show is to be asked, "how do you feel about that" in sixteen different ways and sitting for five seconds after each question with a puzzled look on your face saying nothing. They would be better off not going on the show at all and making a tape that they send out to the press that answers questions people might have, if they want press coverage.

I have made my mind up, I will never be interviewed via a satellite connection on a morning talk show. They can send a real reporter out if they ever need to talk to me. :big_teeth_2:

lol..I'll be sure I remember that about the interview :wwink:. You know, I wasn't sure if the women didn't know why they dressed that way or if they were simply not willing to go into a "religious" thing concerning this. Maybe they felt it would only add fuel to the fire? I've noticed that, for the most part, they steer toward a "community" aspect of this rather than the religious aspect. I don't know if that's calculated on their part of if their attorneys have told them to proceed that way or what.

I'd agree that the Today show is not the place to be interviewed if you want a real interview. I'm sometimes amazed at the stupid-sounding questions they ask folks. I used to threaten to email them and ask if they were trying to be Jerry Springer Lite or something...lol. I'm guessing these folks just figure they need to tell someone, and the Today show does have a pretty good rep. I wonder if they are granting GMA and CBS interviews. I haven't looked.

I guess we'll just have to see how it unfolds from here. I have to admit that I'm interested because I keep waiting for the questions about certain freedoms to come up, and I want to see how that's dealt with. In most stories like this there are weapons or tax evasion or some other type of government no-no going on. Polygamy could be it for this one, but that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of it. It's the abuse angle.

I could come up with all kinds of conspiracy theories concerning religion and the abuses therein that the government is herding this toward, but I'll refrain. :medium-smiley-044:

[tking]

Okay, so two couples were on the Today show yesterday, and I found myself wondering just what the state of TX thought it was doing in this? These people were told the children would be kept together, but of course, that was probably never the plan. The children are scattered from one end of the state to the other. These two families (which I assume are representative of most of them) are spending their time traveling and living in their vehicles mostly just to get to see some of their children for an hour at a time. The Dads aren't allowed to see the children at all.

One set of these parents have a daughter that they say is 23 years old. This daughter has a valid driver's license, yet the state insists the girl is 16! How in the world can that be? If the child has a valid driver's license, then how did she get it? Apparently the birth records of this community mean zero. I find that pretty suspect since right here in Oklahoma we have the Church of the First Born who have midwives that deliver the children, and those records are considered as legal and binding as a doctor's records. So...what's the deal there?

I don't know, but I'm beginning to wonder who the abusers really are here. Of course I don't abide by polygamy or forcing girls to marry. But according to these folks girls were never forced (however, I do take that with a grain of salt because what else are they gonna say?). All in all, though, we're talking infants all the way to at least 18-year-old children (or 23 if you believe the one set of parents) who have been split up, denied visits by their parents, tossed into a society that is absolutely foreign to them, and this is supposed to be helpful? It seems like something else is going on here. And it also makes me wonder just how far a state will go to violate a religious freedom.

[Tallen]

Okay, so two couples were on the Today show yesterday, and I found myself wondering just what the state of TX thought it was doing in this? These people were told the children would be kept together, but of course, that was probably never the plan. The children are scattered from one end of the state to the other. These two families (which I assume are representative of most of them) are spending their time traveling and living in their vehicles mostly just to get to see some of their children for an hour at a time. The Dads aren't allowed to see the children at all.

One set of these parents have a daughter that they say is 23 years old. This daughter has a valid driver's license, yet the state insists the girl is 16! How in the world can that be? If the child has a valid driver's license, then how did she get it? Apparently the birth records of this community mean zero. I find that pretty suspect since right here in Oklahoma we have the Church of the First Born who have midwives that deliver the children, and those records are considered as legal and binding as a doctor's records. So...what's the deal there?

I don't know, but I'm beginning to wonder who the abusers really are here. Of course I don't abide by polygamy or forcing girls to marry. But according to these folks girls were never forced (however, I do take that with a grain of salt because what else are they gonna say?). All in all, though, we're talking infants all the way to at least 18-year-old children (or 23 if you believe the one set of parents) who have been split up, denied visits by their parents, tossed into a society that is absolutely foreign to them, and this is supposed to be helpful? It seems like something else is going on here. And it also makes me wonder just how far a state will go to violate a religious freedom.

I saw that show, and thought, next they tell these parents they can't have their kids because they live in their truck and don't have a permanent residence. It's the states way of thinking.

[tking]

I saw that show, and thought, next they tell these parents they can't have their kids because they live in their truck and don't have a permanent residence. It's the states way of thinking.

I grow more and more appalled each day. Today there is a report of a new mother who has been determined to actually be 22, but she and her children (including the new baby) have been in foster care. They will let her leave foster care, now that they've determined her actual age, but they won't let her leave with the children. Now, they've been telling all of them all along that if they won't go back to the "community" and will live outside it, they can have their children, once they've established they aren't in a polygamous relationship and that the children are actually theirs. So my question is, how is it legal for the state to keep the children of this woman and her husband, who are not in a polygamous relationship (according to them)? The Dad hasn't even gotten to see his new child yet. Something is seriously wrong.

[Tallen]

Our founding Father's were wise when the put a separation between religion and the state. The liberal application of that is they don't want the church or religious groups to be involved in the government and how it is run..., but they want to be involved in matters of faith and religion determining what is acceptable or not. What we are witnessing is the erosion of religious liberties by those that want to control all of the citizenry by their morality. A morality that is divorced from God and His law.

These folks, although wrong in their religion, are truly being persecuted. The state overlooks a woman living with several men, when it is not in marriage and without religion and of the lowest morality. But goes after similar folks that are religious in nature. It is sick and there is no objective standard to be applied over all of society. Perhaps this applies in principal:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)

[tking]

Our founding Father's were wise when the put a separation between religion and the state. The liberal application of that is they don't want the church or religious groups to be involved in the government and how it is run..., but they want to be involved in matters of faith and religion determining what is acceptable or not. What we are witnessing is the erosion of religious liberties by those that want to control all of the citizenry by their morality. A morality that is divorced from God and His law.

These folks, although wrong in their religion, are truly being persecuted. The state overlooks a woman living with several men, when it is not in marriage and without religion and of the lowest morality. But goes after similar folks that are religious in nature. It is sick and there is no objective standard to be applied over all of society. Perhaps this applies in principal:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)

You know, I find myself wondering....where are the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the religious community on this? If this group were of a different race, there would be screaming from the rooftops about discrimination and persecution. I honestly don't know if there are anything but "white" families in this, but this should be an outrage to everyone, whether religious or not, no matter what race they are.

[Tallen]

You know, I find myself wondering....where are the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons of the religious community on this? If this group were of a different race, there would be screaming from the rooftops about discrimination and persecution. I honestly don't know if there are anything but "white" families in this, but this should be an outrage to everyone, whether religious or not, no matter what race they are.

Good point, which shows the self-serving agenda of the Sharptons and Jacksons, and the mishandling of the situation by the state.

BTW, there is no due process in these cases where child abuse exists. They assume guilt until the accused proves their innocence. What should happen is that the guilty are presumed innocent, and if found guilty of child abuse (sexual or otherwise), be given swift justice even up to the death penalty. Since there is no justice given in these cases, the innocent are presumed guilty and the guilty are never given their just deserts. And in some cases, when they are hidden in the RCC, never brought to justice while the Papal decree is to pay the victim off and accuse them of sin. Do I sense a bit of hypocrisy here, by those in authority? This little group being sought out and the big group being dismissed (ignored) for the same crimes?

But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. (Deuteronomy 22:25-27)