Comments (392)

I don't care what religion you are in but if you have sex with girls as young as 13 your darn sick if you ask me. I find this as a excuse to commit such sick acts on children. I hope these young women get justice.

If a religious group was still practicing Human Sacrifice (which Many religions did)

how many of you
"fighting for the rights of FLDS" because "it's their religious beliefs that include the forced marriage of children" (which is illegal in this country) and "in ancient times this was normal"

Would feel so compelled to support human sacrifice...
any volunteers....

The issue is not constraining religious experience but Preventing the abuse of the most vulnerable members of society...
Most people Sacrificed for "the greater good" were women and children...the powerless then...
...and now...

In a Just society (humanistic or religious) we should be fighting for their freedom...

Dawn mentioned that she has friends and family who are Mormon and knows people who have Mormon family members.

I'm glad your family and friends are people that you can speak highly of but they are almost certainly not at all associated or related to this cult.

Please do not confuse the 13 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with this cult which besmirches the name and reputation of the real religion through their perverse actions.

www.mormon.org

This is a travesty! Freedom of religion not withstanding, how does this happen in The U.S. As a praticing Catholic I have no interest in the FLDS as a religion. My interests are solely based on the God-given liberties and freedoms garunteed in the constitution...There is no one among us that does not have somewhere in our family tree, a marriage with the age difference that is being reported in this story. It wasn't that many generations ago that these kinds of marriages were commonplace... As for the polygamus charges, what would be the difference if a man and several women just lived together, and the man fathered children with all the women. As far as I know, that's not illegal. Men father children with multiple women all the time. I don't condone this, I'm just saying it happens without law enforcement busting down any doors and child protective services getting involved. The reaction of the state and media seem to be one solely based upon discrimination of a lifestyle and personal beliefs that they don't agree with. All this hatred of something different is being couched in the refrain of "we must protect the children"...For example,Islam, the world's largest religion, is not much different in how it treats women and children.Arranged marriages, women being treated as second-class citizens, large age differences between husbands and wifes, honor killings, ect.. Lately, we as a society, have been bending over backwards not insult muslims. It seems to me that we could extend the same courtesies to our fellow citizens.

I am of the Mennonite faith and have Mormon cousins, I work on family history and they have always been nice to me, I don't see nothing wrong with my Morman cousins. This is pure gossip here. I even go to some of their genealogy workships and my past pastors (Mennonite)wife goes to Utah and does research. This is said to put some of my family down. I find my Mormon family to be very friendly. My hairdresser is a Baptist and she has Mormon cousins also, she said the wished people would quite putting each other down to. And also I have a Baptist family of peachers in my family and they also have Mormon cousins.

The FLDS story raises serious concerns and questions? I am not a lawyer nor a sympathizer with the FLDS philosophy; I acknowledge there are allegations of possible sexual exploitation and/or crimes. Nevertheless, this episode seems mighty heavy handed by the government and possibly a violation of the freedom and rights of a bunch of peculiar people. Consider this:
1. What law does the State of Texas site as justification for the taking of children from their parents? Where is proof of child abuse and/or neglect?
2. Is there a violation of the Habeas Corpus clause of the US Constitution? They’ve taken 416 children, imprisoning them, without producing the reasons or evidence for their being held.
3. If someone in my church committed a sexual crime against a minor, would that justify invading homes and taking children, of all church members and searching all homes?
4. What is the evidence that 416 children were in eminent danger of having sexual crimes committed against them?
5. There appears to be collective guilt based on one single reported surreptitious cell phone call by a pregnant girl alleging sexual abuse. Are all 416 children crime victims? Where are the perpetrators of all these multiple crimes?
6. Why are foster homes, or the State of Texas, better caretakers for the 416 children than their parents?
7. Admittedly, the FLDS have strange beliefs and ways, but is that legal justification to intervene in their affairs? If so, site the reasons and laws? If “protection from sexual abuse,” then prove it. What is the evidence?
8. Is it lawful for the State of Texas to intervene when there is only the threat of a perceived crime (i.e., sexual exploitation of children) rather than an actual crime? Since when are people arrested for possible future crimes?
9. I take umbrage with search and seizure of homes and possessions? Since when can police forcefully enter and search homes, take possessions that might be evidence, absent proof of a crime having been committed? The “probable cause” argument is flimsy. Moreover, the probable cause pertained to only one person, not an entire community.
10. The "probable cause" justifying the search warrant, seems flawed: 1- the complainant (16 y/o girl) has not been found, and 2- her accusations have not been substantiated so far, and 3- the alleged criminal (Barlow, the 16 y/old's husband) lives in Arizona and denies he is involved, and 4- the complainant was just one person, not an entire community.
11. Is it possible that the story of the 16 y/o girl was a prank, fabricated, or falsified to justify intervention by the State of Texas?
12. Is there evidence religious persecution might be a factor? Clearly the beliefs of the FLDS are strange, but so are those of Quakers and Mennonites.
13. Is the State of Texas obfuscating facts and glossing over legal requirements.
14. Why are the authorities questioning young children, without their parents or an attorney being present. Aren’t children entitled to an advocate for their rights? Is it possible these children are being coerced into giving evidence their parents?
15. Beds were found in the FLDS Temple, resulting in the allegation the beds were for sexual initiation. Could it be possible these beds are used for sleeping or napping of Temple users? But, if sexual initiation was the use, so what? Where does a newly married FLDS couple go on a honeymoon or where do they spend their first night? Perhaps the Temple is a special place to consummate a marriage?
16. Polygamy is illegal in the US, as far as I know. But polygamy laws are not enforced, any more than are laws against adultery or cohabitation. President Clinton got away sexual infidelity with no charges. And what about Muslims who practice polygamy? Are Muslims prosecuted and their children taken?
17. The 416 children who have been taken from their parents are subjected to emotional and psychological trauma by authorities (the Division of Protective Services).

The FLDS raid seems like a fiasco, so far. I’d hate to be a citizen of Texas, having to pay for the lawsuit to follow, if the “probable cause” is shown to be bogus or can’t be supported. Moreover, I’d welcome the lawsuit to curtail the heavy handed government tactics for which Texas is notorious.

This story seems like 1984 revisited.

Richard Hadlock
2127 Lorita Way
Sandy, UT 84093
942-6282

Polygamy is illegal....plain and simple. I've noticed that any time someone gets caught doing something illegal in this country they lose quite a few rights immediately. That's the way it works around here and we want it that way. And of course you're innocent until proven guilty, but aren't the polygamists in that community telling the world that they are indeed living out a felony by committing polygamy in this awesome country.

Yes, a crime has been committed. Now quit with the spin on entitlement.

Texas has screwed up again and it is going to cost them dearly. Ignoring constitutional rights of the citizens. Taking children from parents. What kind of joke people live in Texas anyway?

An no, I am not a Mormon, but incidentally, neither are the FLDS polygamists.

This is a true example of the failures of "evolution" and how just like ALL other scientific doctrine, it has its limits. As a contiually growing athetistic and secular society in America, we like to believe that we have "evolved" as humans by our own merits and therefore are no longer susceptible to the same short-comings and failures of our hoplessly barbaric ancestors. The disrespect for the greatness of our past is truly grievous.

What this all points to is this fact: every generation before us has suffered religions persecution. In fact, our country was built on those who no longer could live in a state that would not let them exercise their religious freedom to act in ways in accordance with their own conscience. We are repeating the same mistakes that we sought to erradicate upon the foundation of this nation, it is in our consitituion.

Therefore, this recent breach of personal freedom is unconstitutional and should be condemned. The state acted presumptiously and without justifiable cause. It did not give due procedure, which is another breach of national law. The heavy-hand of the government is infringing upon the personal rights of these citizens. Do not presume to believe that you yourselfs know the nature of true extent of the allegations yourselfs. Our justice system is based upon a principle of "innocent until proven guilty" for reason, do not abandon it.

We will suffer exponentially if this type of socialistic rule continues, just as other societies have in the past. What a dissapointment this nation has become. Makes you think that even the greatest of ideals are eventually and inevitably doomed for corruption. I pray that other like-minded advocates for our personal rights secured to us under our consitution pray for the return of these poor children to their righful and God-given mothers and fathers, except in any case where child abuse may have been truthfully and evidentally inacted- which I believe was rare if at all.

May God have mercy on our country and forgive us for its never-ending failures.

I have read your comments and I find some of them quite naive. The government did exactly as it should; especially for the sake of morality, although that seems to missing from the majority of our laws now-a-days. The misery that all of these women, men (non-leadership) and children endured are heart-wrenching. You cannot comprehend it if you have not experience it. Religious freedom stops at sexual, physical and should stop at psychological abuse.
I grew up in something similar, although, thankfully, my whole family got out. It isn't just television that they do not have experience with, it is God, religion, wearing certain colors/styles, the style of your hair, what music you listen to, the way you think, what you read, how you speak, what your education level is, your sense of self - it penetrates EVERYTHING. These slaves didn't have the freedoms that are known to us. The psychological damage is sever and radiates into every piece of your mind, body and soul. Depending on the ages of the children, for that matter everyone, with exception for the leadership of this sect, they all will have the same issues and their age will determine how much of this insanity has soaked in. I am unsure if any state agency could handle this many children with these issues. They will need a lot of assistance and many understanding families in order to not further traumatize these children. The greatest thing about the USA is that it was founded with Judeo-Christian values. These values dictated that everyone is free - not just those who contributed more money or those who were born boys or born to a certain family. Regardless of what will happen - they are all better off for this raid. Even if they are in state institutions, they are better off. At least now they will be given a choice - even though they are not yet capable of understanding what these choices are - thanks to the years of abuse. It isn’t the religious freedom of the leadership you should be considering here – they broke the law- they hurt many people- their rights should be taken away. What about the rights of all of these enslaved men, women and children who never had the right to not participate? Any thoughts or consideration for them?

"Has any crime been committed? So far, I only see a lot of leaked accusations intended to inflame the ignorant."

What *I* see is reports of police action, presumably (necessarily, in fact, unless there was a serious system failure here) based on probable cause. That's not a leaked accusation -- it's simply what has happened.

Whether a crime has been committed or not is a question of fact. And since there's no chance I'll be on any Texas jury looking at alleged crimes arising from all of this, I won't be making the official ex post determination of fact characteristic of our legal system.

But, c'mon -- is there any doubt some crazy stuff is going on inside these compounds?

"Hopefully when the dust settles we can sue the pants off the judge and other officials who cooked up this 'operation oppression'."

Only if there was "a serious system failure here" (see above). If there has been, then, sure, we should absolutely hold people accountable. But at first glance, I can't see any obvious evidence of officials acting unreasonably, to be honest. They had a tip, they acted on it, they took (seemingly in good faith) measures to try to ensure the safety of impacted people.

"I am concerned about the mob rule of government agencies and remind the readers that we have a 2nd Amendment right specifically for keeping our government rulers in line"

Ah, the Second Amendment. I have a hint of libertarian in me, so I can empathize somewhat. As a citizenry, we've clearly done a crap job of policing our government recently. But, to be honest, I just don't think the Second Amendment is a useful tool for policing government anymore. Is the threat of armed conflict between our elected government and its citizens at all realistic? Is it at all useful?

I don't think we need (or, indeed, can effectively use) guns to police our government -- we simply need to pay better attention to what's going on in the political world, and to be much, much more collectively rational about what powers our government needs to keep us safe. We have empowered our government to spy on us, torture people, and do all sorts of other crazy things, all in the name of providing the elusive safety that those very powers ironically are very likely to undermine.

That said, this particular episode doesn't seem overtly troublesome to me. The police got what they deemed to be a reliable tip. They acted on it. Pretty standard stuff.

Has any crime been committed? So far, I only see a lot of leaked accusations intended to inflame the ignorant.

Hopefully when the dust settles we can sue the pants off the judge and other officials who cooked up this "operation oppression".

No, I am not a Mormon or for that matter, religious. I am concerned about the mob rule of government agencies and remind the readers that we have a 2nd Amendment right specifically for keeping our government rulers in line.

Holy cow, Edgar. Let me correct your post:

"That's my *lack of* understanding of the matter."

Is that what it takes to apologize for religion nowadays? Forcing yourself to ignore the facts and believe insane conspiracy theories? Pretty sad state of affairs, I'd say.

Someone needs to take a good hard look in the mirror, and try to come to grips with the fact that the guy in the reflection is attempting to protect the systematic rape of little girls.

Davidov,

There no criminal abuse committed by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FCOJCOLDS). That's impossible that 416 children were subjected to the criminal abuse and were in jeopardy. The State of Texas openly lie about Church members' criminal sexual and mental abuse with governmentally created false story in the fraudulent affidavit written by the State of Texas official and "child abuse professional", trained as a victimologist ("specialist" in making up "child abuse victim" from normal person). There absolutely impassible for any perpetrator to abuse 416 children who are under 24-hours daily care of their mothers. That's simple as day and night.

What we have so far is systematically planned and conducted religious persecution of Mormon Church with all its members, and the governmental abuse of power by the State of Texas and by the Federal government, who used state's entities for its own political agenda of subjugation of religious organization to governmental powers.

That's my understanding of the matter.

What the problem now on the site?

lafred:

But where you are also right is that the religious doctrines of the FLDS are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether criminal activity occurred. Freedom of religion ends where criminal activity begins (one of many boundaries on the privilege of freedom of religion we have given ourselves). The primary issue here is criminal abuse (what happened, who carried it out, etc.), not FLDS doctrines.

lafred:

You're right -- the abuse is horrible. And where, like here, abuse is horrible, it's important to identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice. And it's equally important to identify who aren't the perpetrators.

If your next-door neighbor abused an 11-year-old in a sensational nationally reported incident, would you be satisfied if the sole media identification of the perpetrator were that he lived within one of three houses, including yours? I suspect you would take issue with such "minutae" as which house belonged to the perpetrator.

That's precisely the reason the "minutae" of religious doctrine is important here. Who's carrying out this abuse? Answer: not Mormons, but rather a fundamentalist polygamist group that broke off from the Mormon church a long, long time ago.

DR,

You make made false comment that I "refuse to allow someone to state their opinion". That's not possible since I am not a sensor on this site. Also you perverted my critical views in the way which convinient for you or someone else.

I have recently taken interest in this subject and upon reading the article and comments, I have 2 things to say:
1. Contrary to Ms. Hoffman and Raul's statements, Mormons are not nuts who live in colonies with multiple wives. Anyone who lives chooses to live that lifestyle is excommunicated from their church. Just because Raul is claiming something different in the face of an overwhelming number of witnesses to the contrary does not make him right. He is absolutely wrong and just needs to admit it.
2. Raul. Honestly, every time someone expresses their opinion about this matter you reply with condescending attacks, regardless of what point they are trying to make. It's obnoxious. the fact that you refuse to allow someone to state their opinion is immature and indicative of bad communication skills.

What the hell is wrong with you people? You're arguing over the minutiae of religious doctrine when the issue is the abuse of children? You haven't a clue as to what went on in that compound, yet you're eager to blame law enforcement for overstepping its authority. Based on anonymous yet credible telephone conversations, the police obtained a warrant and entered the compound. They found pregnant 11- year-olds and plenty of evidence of rape and abuse. It doesn't matter that they cannot yet identify the original caller. They obtained a warrant based on a credible tip, and executed that warrant legally. If we can't protect the most vulnerable of those among us, God help us all.

Raul,
When I called you a troglodyte, I was referring to your mindset, not speaking literally. Which you might have realized if you weren't such a troglodyte.

Fate, I'd let it go, it's like you're arguing with a tree stump. Straight apologizing for rape and abuse, for the sake of protecting religion ... anything for god, huh? The truth will come out the next time someone sues to get the word "god" removed from a building. They sure won't mind the "government intruding" on that person's "beliefs and rights" then, will they?

Raul wrote: There no such facts (babies of the teenagers used as hostages to keep them from escaping). Read the Texas' criminal code and its definitions before writing anything on the subject of hostage. You acting out as absolutely irresponsible person from the legal point of view."

I suggest you read the afadavit. It states that the 16 year old girl considered many times faking an illness in order to see an "outside" doctor, and then escape, but the church leaders would not allow her to take her infant, so she never made the attempt.

Now, who tells any mother that she cannot take her baby anywhere she wants? And when someone removes a baby from the mother against her wishes to prevent her from leaving the church, what do you call the baby in that situation? Please, what is the legal term you would apply?

Pam,

I can't stop laughing when reading your opnion about me!... In one sentence you wrote: "Raul, you are a true troglodyte." And a bit later you asking the question about book of Caroline Jessop : "Why don't you read it?"

Well, Pam, no trogrodyl can't read or use any compluter with an Internet, and you certainly have no logic in your commentary. I think its better for you went back on the kitchen and deal with the visual objects then with abstracts. Your mind too narrowed for the things which is beyond the daily perceptions. However, I might me wrong, but not as much as you has been with your labeling me as "troglodyte".

Fate,

I think you was out of your mind, when you said: "The babies of those girls who have had babies were used as hostages should any want to leave."

There no such facts. Read the Texas' criminal code and its definitions before writing anything on the subject of hostage. You acting out as absolutely irresponsible person from the legal point of view.

Bud wrote: "Again, I fully support the actual investigation and intervention in the matter. I just object to the way in which it was done. There were other methods to deal with the situation which would have still protected the children without using government stong-arm tactics."

Well now I'm curious, just what other methods do you think should have been used to protect hundreds of children who were suspected of being not only sexually abused and physically harmed but being held against their will? The babies of those girls who have had babies were used as hostages should any want to leave. This is not speculation, this was what the 16 year old reported in her many calls. If your daughter was at a summer camp and you got a call from her reporting sexual and physical abuse to the point of breaking ribs, and other girls had gotten pregnant, and no adult would protect her or other girls, just what non-strong-arm tactics would you want the police to use?

Bud wrote: "I googled about a half a dozen news articles at random on the issue, and not one of them mentioned any direct involvement on the part of the parents. Most of the articles state that the girls were forced into the marriage by the men in charge, not the parents. If anything, I would imagine that the mothers were very much against it, but felt helpless to do anything about it."

Look Bud, if the children are living in this communal environment and giving up their children to the abuse of the communal leaders, then the abuse is happening with their consent. The parents would then be accomplices to the crime or at least negligent unless they could prove they considered themselves prisoners themselves, but I find it hard to believe that over 500 people could not escape what they considered to be a prison. It seems evident from what we currently know that these people lived there willingly and gave up their children to older men for marriage/sex. Please read the article at: origin.sltrib.com/ci_8859786 and then tell me the parents, who are not giving up information about their children such as age and birthdates, is not condoning what happened to them.

Bud wrote: "Your entire argument rests almost entirely on the fact that the parents were not only involved but were forcing the children into this. I see no evidence of your claim. Therefore, my comparison does indeed seem to be valid indeed."

I see no evidence that the parents were protecting the children from this. This is from one news article:
"Court documents said a number of teen girls at the 1,700-acre compound were pregnant, and all the children were removed on the grounds that they were in danger of "emotional, physical, and-or sexual abuse."
I would suppose a parent would know whether their teenager was married and pregnant in such a close and closed community, don't you think, and if they did not, wouldn't that be negligent?

Bud wrote: "For the record: I am not "for" child abuse in any manner, shape or form. I am not against (and even support) the investigation of this sect. I fully support the persecution of any individuals that may be found involved and guilty. I am simply against the mass accusation of hundreds of people on the claims of one girl who can not even be identified at the current time."

Well the one girl's calls (yes, more than one) lead to the raid. The obviously pregnant underage girls they found lead to taking them into protective custody as reported in the court document. If you were the chief of police and found many underage girls living in a compound where the freedoms of them and their parents were restricted or self imposed, and many were pregnant, indicating rape (sex with a minor is considered rape even if the sex was consensual), what would you do? As a government official your duty requires you to protect the citizens of your state. You seem to be advocating that even with evidence of abuse the children should have be left in the abusive environment. I disagree, strongly.

DAVIDOV: I think the difference between the Catholic situation and the FLDS situation is likely the degree of probable cause police had in relation to other members of the congregation.

You have a valid point, and I agree with you in some respects that there are differences that may render the analogy weak. But you mention that:

"There is reason to believe, however, that the abuse of underage girls by FLDS leaders was part and parcel of FLDS doctrine."

Many of the posts here make this very assumption: that sexual abuse is a widespread aspect of the FLDS lifestyle. This strikes me as stereotyping, something I always personally try to avoid. This may indeed turn out to be true, but at this point, without evidence, it is speculation for this particular sect. What worries me is perhaps the persons involved in making the determination whether to raid the compound have the same stereotypes which clouded their judgement? As I am sure you can attest to, we are dealing with a very sensitive subject: the sexual abuse of minors. This subject almost always causes people to lose thier objectivity. People always want to err on the side of caution in these matter.

Again, I fully support the actual investigation and intervention in the matter. I just object to the way in which it was done. There were other methods to deal with the situation which would have still protected the children without using government stong-arm tactics.

Thanks for your reply.

Fate: One fatal flaw in your comparison with those incidents and the incident in Texas: NO parents were forcing their children into the arms of priests. None were condoning it, all were appauled that it happened, therefore no need to remove the children from their parents for protection.

I googled about a half a dozen news articles at random on the issue, and not one of them mentioned any direct involvement on the part of the parents. Most of the articles state that the girls were forced into the marriage by the men in charge, not the parents. If anything, I would imagine that the mothers were very much against it, but felt helpless to do anything about it. Your entire argument rests almost entirely on the fact that the parents were not only involved but were forcing the children into this. I see no evidence of your claim. Therefore, my comparison does indeed seem to be valid indeed.

Fate: Your logic is terribly flawed, as usual.

That's your opinion. But for the record, you are the one who presented an argument based on one key assumption that does not appear to have substantial evidence at this point. And to add to that, you resorted to childish tactics like name calling and casting insults in an attempt to bolster your argument. But I have seen many like you; those who demonize and insult others who disagree with them.

For the record: I am not "for" child abuse in any manner, shape or form. I am not against (and even support) the investigation of this sect. I fully support the persecution of any individuals that may be found involved and guilty. I am simply against the mass accusation of hundreds of people on the claims of one girl who can not even be identified at the current time.

Raul, you are a true troglodyte.

I am not "hysterical" - what a sexist comment. I think you might fit right in with these FLDS guys. And Alex, don't tell me to "relax." That is tantamount to the same thing.

Neither is Caroline Jessop hysterical - these aren't spur-of-the-moment wild accusations on her part, she wrote a book, remember? Why don't you read it?

Others have suggested reading "Under the Banner of Heaven", but it bears repeating. I've read it - have you?

I've also seen a television expose - I don't remember now who did it - Sixty Minutes...? Dateline...? Anyway, it was revealing, terrifying, and revolting.

And yes, Alex, they *all* do it. All the men, that is. I doubt that all of them abuse babies as in C.J.'s story, but they all keep women as chattel and as prisoners, and the women have no say in anything at all - not in whom they marry, how many kids they have, or what they will do with their lives. If ever there was a fate worse than death, this would qualify.

I for one will be lumping all religious people in with these perverted ba$tards. It's only fair, since lately religious people have been lumping us atheists in with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and other mass murderers. (See: Stein, Ben.)

Oh, but I'm sure you're just worried about these people for the sake of freedom, Claire. Cute. I almost bought it.

Jeff,

I think you over-reacting. As I said before, if the accusations are true, I agree for certain governmental intervention, but not on the scale which is conducted by the Texas' government with total shot down the church.

I believe the government -- state and federal -- heard a lot of stories, however without exact names, dates and places. Naturally with such stories government couldn't proceed with legal actions. Now, perhaps, they do. We'll see.

It is interesting that we have Pam on one side implying that everyone in FLDS is doing it, and on the other side, you have Raul who is suggesting that nobody in FLDS is doing it. Perhaps it is somewhere between the two. I don't know. Anyway, I am getting it from both directions.

I agreed with Alex.

If all what is said by Carolyn Jessop is true, the matter with exact individuals would be clearly criminal. However, there no such facts. Just terifying nivelty from Carolyn Jessop.

I think, Pam, you never study the U.S. Constitution, the Fourth Amendment' principles, besides the principles of criminal proceedings in state (of Texas) and federal courts. Don't get hystrical out of hysterics of 2 person. There is clear need for the facts.

Alex, (thanks by the way for a good and reasonable dialogue)

so, where are we so far in all of this?

1) Texas: land of opportunity for wacko religious cult embellishment, if not the perfect breeding ground, the ideal location to move to, especially if cult leader is an on-the-run fugitive from the FBI.
2) Texas: terrible results when similar cults have run afoul of the law, and intervention is necessary—Texas has a dismal track record for dealing with religious cults who “dig in” to their compounds when they know the intent is to have any law-enforcement intervention disrupt their happy little communities. This has been a terrible issue for Utah for many, many years. It has been politically fragile, a huge quagmire as far as law enforcement, and thus far the only way it’s been prosecuted in Utah has been when they are prosecuted for tax fraud. The complexity of this issue is probably not lost on these law enforcement guys.
3) Texas: opportunity to learn from past mistakes? Are we willing to see another Waco? I wonder if "precedents" have been set by our prior failures?
4) Texas: why on earth were these people allowed to move into the area to start with, given their religious premise of polygamy—it’s certainly no secret as to what they are about…
5) Phone call: “abuse!”
6) Decision: how many phone calls does it take to make a decision regarding a large group of people who, by their very definition, are living in a way that collectively breaks the law and also, as a primary tenet of the religion, involves the illegal “arranged marriages” of young girls as subsequent “wives,” compounding the complexity of the original call, and the original reason for the intervention?

If a “bomb” is about to explode, do you wait for 400 phone calls? Do you take the risk, knowing by the very definition of the beliefs of a cult, of allowing the leaders to determine the fate of the remaining people in the compound—ie. remember the Davidians?

And if you think this could never have resulted in the massive deaths of hundreds of people, just think back in history a little bit about the Jim Jones cult with the kool-aid, and the Branch Davidians with the charismatic leader David Koresh, the suicides precipitated by the Heaven’s Gate crew and their wonderful leader Marshall Applewhite. Not just leaders, these groups have prophets.

Recent history just wouldn’t be on the side of taking a “wait and see” approach, nor waiting until there were 400 phone calls about potential abuse.

What, then, is your suggestion or idea of how the group might have been “approached?” As far as any child protective agency experience I’ve ever dealt with, (and it’s been a number over the years in my field) the idea is protection first, work out the specifics later. Sometimes the system works well, sometimes not…

I’m sympathetic to your idea of not allowing the sabers to rattle just to condemn a particular belief system, but this is a belief system that, by its very nature, breaks the law. In this particular blog, it has done no good to appeal to the sense of human liberties regarding the stories of those “in” this sect, or to pay some heed to the stories of those who “escaped,” and it’s also simply astonishing to me that someone would be surprised that, under such a repressive regime, they “pretty much stay to themselves.”

Raul is correct with the suggestion that “repressed memories” and the therapists who advocate them have no credibility, and that much harm has been done in the name of trying to “help” people who feel or by others that they have been victimized, but I really wonder if that’s an equivalent or appropriate discussion in regard to what happens to these people within their cult, in this circumstance, at this time.

Reading Raul, I think he has a healthy (?) skepticism with any governmental authority, although I can’t quite put my finger on the irony. This cult, in particular, relies in a very large way on governmental support for their money. But it is the government that should keep their hands out of it? And remember, who is the “government?”

[Additionally ironically, the most infamous of these “repressed memory” crimes was done in a very religious town, with the complete “blessings” of clergy, religious sheriff, and court system that resulted in a 20 year (life sentence) incarceration of a man who was innocent. Read the story of Paul Ingram of Olympia, Washington. Talk about a modern witch hunt… So, it’s not just those evil law enforcement officers who are capable of rattling sabers.]

No one’s minds have been changed in all of this, but it’s been fun discussing it. I’m sorry that some of these people have to live their (relatively short) human existences in such way, often without any choice in the matter. I’m grateful if even some of these folks are allowed that opportunity, at some future point, of making that decision for themselves.
Signing off!

Pam:

"Still want to defend this as "religious freedom" Raul, Alex, etc.?? "

Pam, please relax. I never once defended the abuse you site on the basis of religious freedom, nor would I. Such abuse is indefensible. I loath it. You are preaching to the choir.

The point I am making is that you if you are going to haul out 400+ children and ~133 women into custody on a suspicion of abuse, you had better be right.

By the way, I saw that report on MSNBC, too. I believe she is credible as well. I am all for gutting out any individual, organization, philosophy, or religion who is abusing women and children. Just be careful how you do it. You could end up establishing a horrible unintended precedent that ends up undermining everybody's Constitutional rights.

Carolyn Jessop lived in the Colorado City, AZ compound of this sect. She was forced to marry a man 32 years her senior, who already had several wives. She later managed to escape with her 8 children.

From MSNBC, here's a brief excerpt from her book about her experience entitled “Escape.” In it, she talks about being totally cut off from the world and not being allowed to watch television or read newspapers or magazines.

“Everything you did was monitored and controlled and everybody reported on everyone else,” she said. “It was a police state. You were not allowed to make decisions in your life. I had no power over my life or the lives of my children. It was a terrible way to live.”

The alleged control began in infancy.

“The method he would use with infants was a form of water torture,” Jessop said of her former husband. “He would spank the baby until it was screaming out of control, and then he would hold the baby face up under a tap of running water so it couldn’t breathe. He would do this repeatedly. Sometimes, it would go on for an hour, until the baby was so exhausted it couldn’t cry anymore. This method he called ‘breaking them.’”

To a child, the abuse becomes normal, she said, and resistance becomes unthinkable to most. “With this level of mind control, it’s something you’re born into and it’s generational. The babies born into this, they don’t stand a chance from the beginning,” she said.

Still want to defend this as "religious freedom" Raul, Alex, etc.?? Still think the law has no right to step in? If so, you're as wrong as these men are.

Someone below asked why no one noticed these abused women and children, and asked if they didn't go to school, or see doctors. The answer is no, they didn't. They are home schooled, and they go to a clinic within the compound, staffed by members of the sect. They are not allowed to know about or see the outside world. This is no way a "choice" on the part of the women and children. You can't possibly make a choice unless you know what the options are. These people are sex slaves, pure and simple.

Alex,

You wrote: "I have no reason in the world to doubt that there have been underage girls marrying older men and I am fully aware of and fully acknowledge the law with regards to sexual relations with the underaged (16)."

Well, you can accept without doubt anything you wish. However, there is no fact what you said. On another side, I am doubt everything what government and press told me. And for very good reason: I never believed in mass child abuse myth, created by crafty "child abuse professionals” and I do verify personally if the governmental accusation is truthful or false.

So far, as the Mac Martin preschool "molestation" case indicated, the real molestation has been conducted by "mental health professionals" and by the state's attorneys in the State of California. Children were absolutely normal and not suffering any abuse whatsoever from the caretakers, but the Government of the State of California and the whole U.S. press and television lie and made false accusation against innocent Mac Martin family members for very long time, deceiving the people of the United States of America. After exhausting process, the accused were freed - and everybody in the press get shot up... That's the fact.

I do except facts, but after very intensive examination from different angles. So far this not the case in the matter, related to the actions of the State of Texas against people of Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Eldorado, Texas.

Jeff P:

I stand with you in your condemnations of their actions where there is reasonable cause (and there is). However, pardon me if I am a bit more cautious when child protective services picks up 400 children and 133 or so women when there was one that called.

I have no reason in the world to doubt that there have been underage girls marrying older men and I am fully aware of and fully acknowledge the law with regards to sexual relations with the underaged (16). However, in this country, we have also had instances when facts and suspicions are later found to be embellished, especially when many of those making the accusations have a religious axe to grind.

I see people taking digs at their religion as they tell about the den of iniquity the FLDS is, but I can't help but question whether some people making comment are improving upon the truth to make it more damning.

I've been to Colorado City before and have seen these people. I have learned some about them in documentaries. They keep to themselves for the most part.

I hope you understand where I am coming from on this.

Earlier I wrote that people from Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints does not have the attorneys. Today I learned that currently they have it and now their attorney(s) filing the motions in the local court, protesting the illegal invasion, illegal search and illegal detainments of Mormons with children of that religious community.

I am wonder why they did not filed the federal complaint with appropriate motions in the Federal District Court against the FBI violations of the federal statues (18-241, 18-247, 18-248, and the very essence of the First Amendment)?

There also the possibility to fight in the court the activities of US Attorney in the State of Texas – make the request for explanation of the undercover federal activities. There a lot of legal actions could be done in both State and Federal Courts - and timely, without waiting for the governmental moves. Attacking the legal enemy - is the path to implement the Right to Religious Freedoms under First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Jeff,

Did you ever think why 534 women and children did not "escaped" from their community before the "liberation" by Texas government? If governmental "liberation" means the current imprisonment 534 human beings -- women with THEIR children -- in the ex-military barracks of San Angelo, then something wrong with your understanding of the word "liberty".

2 Davidov.

If people in the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, the Mormon community of Eldorado, assaulted by Texas’ government, are not Mormons for you, then you are clearly out of this world.

Just a little interesting update written by someone who has "escaped" the polygamist sect, on MSNBC: this site won't let me hyperlink it, but here's the title on the front page of MSNBC currently.

It's called: "Woman describes ‘escape’ from polygamy
She left the same sect that 534 women, children were freed from in Texas" written by Mike Celizic.

For all who still believe this is just some wacky Texas governmental violation, or even a "molestation" by law enforcement officials as declared by Raul, check out her story.

It seems very representative of people I witnessed in Southern Utah.

And people might think twice regarding that sacred "religious freedom" that we should be so hesitant to disarm for its own sake.

Raul:

Whether somebody views Mormons as "conformists" is a subjective judgment, not a fact.

It is also irrelevant to the question of who the Mormons are.

What *is* a fact and what *is* relevant to the question of who the Mormons are is this: the FLDS was founded by people who were excommunicated from the Mormon church.

This obviously has organizational implications that are relevant to the question of who the Mormons are, but forget about those implications for a minute -- forget about "organizational manifestations." When Movement B (whether organized or not) breaks off ideologically from Movement A, Movement B does not become Movement A, even if Movement B still views itself as Movement A -- unless Movement B becomes so large or influential as to be able to coopt the name of Movement A for itself. From a practical (non-organizational) perspective, it's that simple.

In other words, what is at the "core" of Mormonism can indeed be argued to be relevant. But what is at the "core" of Mormonism must certainly be defined by the observation of those who call themselves Mormon, in which case your interpretation is resoundingly defeated. People who call themselves Mormon overwhelmingly agree that to be Mormon means to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Sociologists such as Janet no doubt observe Mormons to determine far more accurately than you can, by any objective measure at least, what is at the "core" of Mormonism. And, frankly, nobody other than you cares what your subjective thoughts on the subject are. Nobody other than you cares if you think HD DVD is better than Blu-Ray, either. Blu-Ray won. And the FLDS are not Mormons. That's it.

Janet,
Don't hope on something, what you can't do. There no possibility existed for you in such matter, since I am the Master of my Faith.

About Mormons. There is trivial fact: the great number of nonpolygamous people in Mormon religion is the conformists. That's explains all "excommunications".

As for the state-registered wife of Joseph Smith, its so simple to understand her wish not to be killed by mobs, because she already know WHY they killed her husband... Her husband was a Martyr, but she don't want to be like him, knowing that she is simply incapable invoke the same qualities of Spirit in herself.

The matters with spiritual wives Joseph Smith knows long time before to speak about it. He told of the matter to his followers when the time was right. This does not means that polygamy was not in the core of Mormon Religion.

By the way, your academic affiliation means nothing to me. You still don't see the difference between the establishment of religion and its organizational manifestations. At its core, the Mormon Religion remains to be polygamous. In the manifestations divided.

You are correct. Father left the room in order to see how the girls will do in his absence and test my reactions. Later he himself asked me if I want to marry and he can find for me a very nice wife. Important point in this matter was that he was a very influential person, and great number of local Muslims respected him very much. However, I declined his offer: I loved my lady (at my home-city) dearly and I gave her my word never betray her trust in me and my return to her after the travel. That's it. Thanks the Almighty's angel, who protected me from the seductive girls!

Davidov: Thank you for your clear and concise comments regarding the differences between LDS and FLDS theology and the act of excommunication in the LDS Church.

Raul: I hate to throw my weight around, but I will. I have a long history of studying the Mormons and have a master's degree in Religion and Society from the Graduate Theological Union where I studied and wrote about Mormon culture, theology, history, and life. I've presented at academic conferences and symposia on the subject and have shared the dias with scholars like Jan Shipps, the preeminent scholar on Mormonism in the United States. So, curb your tongue when it comes to judging my knowledge about the Mormons.

That said, polygamy has not been part of Mormon theology "from the beginning" as you claim. Joseph Smith, prophet though he may be in the minds of many faithful Mormons, was also a very flawed individual. While some of his writings and beliefs may be divinely inspired, it is also true that some were not. There are numerous scholars and people of faith--both within the LDS Church and within some of its offspring like the Community of Christ Church--that believe Smith's "revelations" on polygamy where not inspired and were simply the misguided desires of a mortal man. Whether they are or aren't is not really the issue here and is best left to exegesis.

Joseph Smith founded the LDS Church in 1830. At that time, there was no polygamy in the church either as a doctrine or as a practice. In 1843, Smith claimed to receive a revelation outlining what he called "The New and Everlasting Covenant" or eternal marriage. This covenant, according to him, included plurality of wives. (See Doctrine & Covenants of the Church Sections 131 and 132.) That's 13 years AFTER the founding of the Mormon Church.

Having said all that, most contemporary Mormons, especially many women, doubt the doctrine of polygamy and a lot of members--men and women alike--quietly hope the doctrine will prove to be wholly false in the overall scheme of the faith's theology and cosmological view. One of the harshest critics of polygamy in Smith's time was his own wife, Emma Smith. Though she initially approved his early plural marriages, she later renounced and worked against the practice. (See "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith" by Linda King Newell and Valeen Avery Tippets)

Again, I beg of you, please get your facts and terms straight. I don't know what your faith is or how you identify yourself, but I would hope I would do a better job at researching your religion than you have done with your information on the Mormons.

Raul:

Stop misconstruing what people say. Have a real conversation.

Many posters here have pointed out the fact that the FLDS are not Mormons. None of those posters denies that polygamy was part of the Mormon church for a time (although not from the very beginning of its establishment, as you claim -- it started around 1843, at least according to any reliable historical source). But the Mormon church subsequently disavowed polygamy in 1890 and within 15 or so years had excommunicated (and, in some cases, began actively supporting the prosecution of) practitioners. Some of those excommun