So what do you all think of the FLDS situation in Eldorado, Texas?

[Lady Katherine]

:confused:

 

I feel terrible for those mothers and children, but I feel a lot worse for the children if the allegations are true. It's hard to know what the right thing is when they can't even find the child who allegedly made the phone call.

 

(Or are we not allowed to discuss this? I'm surprised I can't find threads on this situation already.)

 

FWIW, my great-grandparents were from Eldorado. It's a tiny little place out in the middle of nowhere. I would never have thought it would ever make national news!

 

CLARIFYING: I mean, specifically, what do you think about the way the state has come in and taken custody of over 400 children at this stage of the investigation?

[JFSinIL]

That it is one thing for Amish folks to live as they do - a kid can grow up and leave - but these folks in Texas gave the kids no choice at all - extremely restrictive for all concerned. And no teen girl should be forced or conned into marrying against her will. What kind of "consent" can a teen give at 16 is she is surrounded by folks insisting she MUST be wed??? Younger is simply child abuse.

[Parrothead]

I didn't know anything about it until you posted. I had to look up what happened.

 

Here is a link to the story I read: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-04-13-FLDS-phones_N.htm

 

Since I don't want to criticize anyone's religious beliefs I'm keeping my mouth shut about what I think.

[Rebecca in VA]

and the children will have problems adjusting to the secular world. I think a good transitional solution might be to place the children with "regular" LDS families in Utah. I'm not LDS myself, but I can see the children being more comfortable there.

 

It's a sad situation for the mothers of those children, though.

[Lady Katherine]

That it is one thing for Amish folks to live as they do - a kid can grow up and leave - but these folks in Texas gave the kids no choice at all - extremely restrictive for all concerned. And no teen girl should be forced or conned into marrying against her will. What kind of "consent" can a teen give at 16 is she is surrounded by folks insisting she MUST be wed??? Younger is simply child abuse.

 

Oh, I completely agree, as I think nearly all of us would. I meant, what do you think about the way the state has come in and taken custody of over 400 children?

[Dayle in Guatemala]

there are times that, unfortuately, the state coming in needs to be done. In the case of clear abuse of some kind--neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, etc.--but, I have to admit, a little cautiously, that it does make me nervous. Not so much in this case, but, where do we draw the line? Sometimes I wonder if it'll come down to people not agreeing with the way you raise your children (christian, pagan, atheist, hippie, home schoolin, whatever) and it doesn't fit into "their" mold if that qualifies as abuse to them and they can remove your children, too.

 

I don't usually think that way, and I try to stay away from conspiracy theories in general, but, it does make me think a little bit.

[Claire]

It's hard to figure out what else they could have done. Ideally, it would have been better for CPS to come to the enclave to ensure the safety of the children -- perhaps by expelling the men and posting "observers" in each household. However, there is no legal way for them to have done that. The law provides for them to remove children from a home if there is reason to believe they are being abused, and that is what they did. Without a way to determine which children were at risk, they had to remove all of the children.

 

The fact that the enclave was *so* secretive made it impossible for CPS to investigate thoroughly before removing children. With so many children having identical names and no birth certificates, it is extremely difficult even now for CPS to determine which children are which.

 

On a different note, polygamy is illegal in this country. The "American way" and "freedom of religion" doesn't mean you get to choose which laws you want to break. I do think all of the polygamous marriages should be prosecuted, but I'm not sure exactly what that involves. The law addresses someone who deceives the other party, but what about when they both consent to break the law. Shouldn't the illegal wives be prosecuted right along with the polygamous husbands? :001_huh:

[Lorna in the boonies]

Just interjecting the trivial fact that the "in the boonies" part of my screen name refers to Eldorado. Dh pastored there from 1993-2005. Now we live in San Angelo, the town where the kids are being housed.

 

It is literally the only thing they covered on the local news last night. FLDS, sports, weather, more FLDS. (I'm guessing it's been this way ever since the raid, but since I am more of a newspaper/internet kind of girl for my news, I haven't been tuning in.)

 

I absolutely love Eldorado and hate that its name will forever be tied to this whole thing. It is a wonderful, friendly little place. (And I have to say this: the news has been reporting that it has two traffic lights and "a couple of churches". The truth is that it has one traffic light and 12 churches -- 13, I guess, if you count the FLDS!);)

[*anj*]

I meant, what do you think about the way the state has come in and taken custody of over 400 children?

 

I think that under the circumstances it was appropriate. I am not generally a fan of gov't officials marching into people's homes, but forced (and underage) marriage is illegal, as are polygamy and statutory rape. I feel for the children, but I'm not sure that having the women accompany them is best. I think that it could be an impediment to justice because they will discourage the children from telling too much.

[Melinda in VT]

there are times that, unfortuately, the state coming in needs to be done. In the case of clear abuse of some kind--neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, etc.--but, I have to admit, a little cautiously, that it does make me nervous. Not so much in this case, but, where do we draw the line? Sometimes I wonder if it'll come down to people not agreeing with the way you raise your children (christian, pagan, atheist, hippie, home schoolin, whatever) and it doesn't fit into "their" mold if that qualifies as abuse to them and they can remove your children, too.

 

I don't usually think that way, and I try to stay away from conspiracy theories in general, but, it does make me think a little bit.

 

:iagree: Despite my strong feelings about Mormon-style polygamy, I have concerns about this case as well.

 

Disclaimer: Yes, I know the LDS church doesn't currently practice polygamy. I used the adjective because I don't know enough about polygamy as practiced in other cultures to have formed an opinion on it.

[Sarah CB]

I can't imagine how much turmoil this is causing in the lives of those 400 children, but I do agree that if the allegations are true that *something* needs to be done. I'm less clear as to why all of the children had to be removed. If the concern was with the treatment of teen girls then why not remove girls in a certain age bracket? Why remove the toddlers and the babies and the younger kids?

 

On a side note, why is polygamy illegal? I don't get that.

 

Sarah

[Lorna in the boonies]

I think the whole thing is so very sad. Even if it was a "hoax" they have found proof that this kind of thing did happen and have we forgotten that polygamy is illegal in this country? Why haven't they been prosecuted for that before now?

 

 

If I understand correctly, they haven't been prosecuted before because they weren't legal marriages to begin with. Legally, only the first marriage exists -- and you can't prosecute someone for something that doesn't exist.

 

I may not have it right -- but I think that's the reason.

[Karen sn]

I think they would take my child over my dead body only.

The US government killed many innocent children in Waco, TX when they could have nabbed who they supposedly wanted - David Koresh - at any point in time as he waved to them on his morning jog OFF OF HIS OWN PROPERTY.

Don't even get me started on Janet Reno!

To say nothing of Ruby Ridge!

 

Now - I get that it's pretty stupid - no matter what religion you hide behind - to marry off your 15yo dd to some 50yo man. But I totally support the right of a husband and wife to take on another wife. NOT MY CUP OF TEA - I want dear boyfriend all to myself - but sometimes I see where multiple women (as long as they get each other) running a household could be good.

 

I think the Mormon's get an unfair slap in this country for many things. I do however support NOT ALLOWING YOUR TEENAGER TO MARRY AN OLD MAN.

 

The problem is this: Can the US government really fix anything? Anything at all?

 

I know of a "family" - mom, dad, toddler - whose house is DISGUSTING. It is one of those houses that you see on the news and can not believe anyone really lives that way. Totally NOT healthy for the baby!

I considered calling the sheriff's office for assistance in the matter but I do not want to take responsibility for that child being placed in a broken foster care situation where she may be molested.

 

I don't really have faith in government agancies to protect anyone.

[Claire]

Okay, I was wrong. Polygamy is *not* necessarily illegal in this country! Here is a FAQ on polygamy that I just found that says in part:

 

"The laws vary from state to state, but in general, if you do not ask for a marriage license from the state for your first (marriage), then you can cohabit with as many people as you like and it is not illegal. Bigamy and Adultery are only crimes for a married person, not for people who are living together. Some jurisdictions have laws against having unmarried sex, but they are never enforced.

 

It also helps if you avoid labeling your relationship as a marriage. For example, living together is generally not illegal, but representing yourselves as husband and wife may be.

 

The government is prevented by the constitution from regulating contracts or saying who you may associate with. So you make a contract with another person, the particulars of which contain the usual things that a marriage would be composed of, but you avoid the legal hot words in the body of the contract.

 

But in general if you avoid a marriage license, and don't represent yourselves on official documents as being married, and don't let them declare that you have a common law marriage, then you can do what you want without worrying about it being illegal."

[*anj*]

Okay, I was wrong. Polygamy is *not* necessarily illegal in this country!

 

Okay, well I'll stand corrected on that. I thought it was a Federal law. But I still think it's wrong to force girls to marry old men, and that is illegal. And even if it's not a legal marriage, it is illegal for 50 year old men to have intercourse with 15 year old girls.

[Karen sn]

It's hard to figure out what else they could have done. Ideally, it would have been better for CPS to come to the enclave to ensure the safety of the children -- perhaps by expelling the men and posting "observers" in each household. However, there is no legal way for them to have done that. The law provides for them to remove children from a home if there is reason to believe they are being abused, and that is what they did. Without a way to determine which children were at risk, they had to remove all of the children.

 

The fact that the enclave was *so* secretive made it impossible for CPS to investigate thoroughly before removing children. With so many children having identical names and no birth certificates, it is extremely difficult even now for CPS to determine which children are which.

 

On a different note, polygamy is illegal in this country. The "American way" and "freedom of religion" doesn't mean you get to choose which laws you want to break. I do think all of the polygamous marriages should be prosecuted, but I'm not sure exactly what that involves. The law addresses someone who deceives the other party, but what about when they both consent to break the law. Shouldn't the illegal wives be prosecuted right along with the polygamous husbands? :001_huh:

 

 

Hmmmm.....what about all the married cheaters? Most states are no fault divorce - so essentially they get away with it. I don't really care who consenting adults "marry" - I think we have bigger fish to fry. And are you aware that in some states - still on the law books - it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk?!

 

Legal and illegal are not the same as moral and immoral. If/when they make homeschool illegal - are we all going to follow that law? And even if we sent our kids out - we'd still do it at home in the afternoon.

[Scarlett]

On a side note, why is polygamy illegal? I don't get that.

 

Sarah

 

It is interesting that polygamy is illegal but adultery is not. (I'm not 'for' either one btw)

 

'marrying' off young girls to 50 year old men is not a religious right. It is sick. I guess all that is to be done is remove all the children (from birth on up) from this group because they are convinced this is what God wants them to do. If you were a woman, raised in that group, who didn't like it and wanted out (as that woman who wrote Escape got out) I thinkyou would be very frightened and intimated by the rest of the clan. It would be very hard to speak up in that sort of situation...even if the government had you in protective custody.

 

I would think the gov could get them on fraud, as it seems to me if they are legally single and thereby collecting government benefits, but ACTUALLY living in a household with the father of her children....isn't that illegal?

[Scarlett]

Okay, I was wrong. Polygamy is *not* necessarily illegal in this country! Here is a FAQ on polygamy that I just found that says in part:"

 

So in a technical sense they are all just a bunch of men living and having sex and children with multiple women. That in itself is sick to me. However, when they take underage girls and brainwash them into thinking they have to go along with a 'spiritual' marriage (technically just having sex with a young girl) to much older men...that is just very very wrong and thankfully still illegal.

[Phred]

Since I don't want to criticize anyone's religious beliefs I'm keeping my mouth shut about what I think.

I'm not sure that's a noble pursuit Parrot. At what point do you stand up and say, "that's nuts!" I don't think people do have a right to believe any old thing and cover up the insanity by calling it religious. But that leads to the next question...

 

there are times that, unfortuately, the state coming in needs to be done. In the case of clear abuse of some kind--neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, etc.--but, I have to admit, a little cautiously, that it does make me nervous. Not so much in this case, but, where do we draw the line? Sometimes I wonder if it'll come down to people not agreeing with the way you raise your children (christian, pagan, atheist, hippie, home schoolin, whatever) and it doesn't fit into "their" mold if that qualifies as abuse to them and they can remove your children, too.

 

I don't usually think that way, and I try to stay away from conspiracy theories in general, but, it does make me think a little bit.

That's right. Where do we draw the line? Is anyone going to disagree that we should have stomped in and put an end to this nonsense? Children were being harmed. Women abused. I don't think belief should protect you from acts that harm others.

[Diana in OR]

Sometimes I wonder if it'll come down to people not agreeing with the way you raise your children (christian, pagan, atheist, hippie, home schoolin, whatever) and it doesn't fit into "their" mold if that qualifies as abuse to them and they can remove your children, too.

 

I don't usually think that way, and I try to stay away from conspiracy theories in general, but, it does make me think a little bit.

 

I don't get too concerned about this. Although I know there are cases where children are wrongfully removed from the home, it is extremely rare. I've seen more error on the other side, where CPS didn't do it's job well, and a child was left in or returned to harm's way. There are just so many truly bad situations out there that it is impossible for them to keep up with already, without adding to the list of why a child is being neglected/abused.

[Scarlett]

Oh and as to what I think about the government coming in like they did? I think that is one couragous local LE group. They had to know there would be political back lash....but they wanted to protect those children. And also, don't forget they have admitted to having an informant inside for 'years'...so they know a bit more than they are making public.

[Phred]

The US government killed many innocent children in Waco, TX when they could have nabbed who they supposedly wanted - David Koresh - at any point in time as he waved to them on his morning jog OFF OF HIS OWN PROPERTY.

Of course you hold the people inside the compound who covered straw with gasoline and then gathered everyone together where they were certain to burn to death.... you don't hold them at all responsible. Not even a little?

 

Don't even get me started on Janet Reno!

Don't even get me started on whack-job religious freaks who barricade themselves in compounds and commit suicide by cop.

 

To say nothing of Ruby Ridge!

Total screw-up by US Marshals in Idaho.

 

Now - I get that it's pretty stupid - no matter what religion you hide behind - to marry off your 15yo dd to some 50yo man. But I totally support the right of a husband and wife to take on another wife. NOT MY CUP OF TEA - I want dear boyfriend all to myself - but sometimes I see where multiple women (as long as they get each other) running a household could be good.

Except it's usually abusive. Not always but usually. That's why it's been outlawed. Maybe we're at a point where we should consider it again. Personally I still think we have far too many religious freaks out there who would abuse it. Who do abuse it.

[CookieMonster]

It's not quite how you are discussing it: should/shouldn't the state. But it was a discussion of what was going on - with an interesting perspective by someone close to the situation.

 

I think prayers are needed...

[Lady Katherine]

Just interjecting the trivial fact that the "in the boonies" part of my screen name refers to Eldorado. Dh pastored there from 1993-2005.

 

Wow! I have never met anyone else in my LIFE who knew Eldorado. I haven't been there since I was about five. I remember a restaurant that had this huge, detailed dollhouse filled with miniatures. I was fascinated by that! I suppose it's long-gone by now, but it made a big impression on me at the time.

[Joanne]

I'm less clear as to why all of the children had to be removed. If the concern was with the treatment of teen girls then why not remove girls in a certain age bracket? Why remove the toddlers and the babies and the younger kids?

 

The brainwashing, indoctrination and pervasive world view of people in this environment is terrifying. I'm not saying I support the state coming in and taking custody of the younger children.

 

But the younger children have *already* been abused, exposed, exploited and are at risk. It doesn't start when they are "older". It starts with the parents; and whatever made those parents at risk to become involved in an extreme and abusive situation.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

After reading what I wrote, I realized, maybe it sounded better in my head?:confused: I also, after reading a couple of responses, realized I may have not made my point very clearly (or I just misunderstood those responses, which is entirely possible, since, for some reason today, I can't seem to get my brain to work). Let me clarify my opinion since this is really important to me.

 

I agree that in this case, something needed to be done. I don't believe we leave children in a setting where they are "married" (leagally or not). I don't believe that children having children is a good thing. I think, in this situation, something had to be done. Unfortunately, it was the removal of over 400 children from their families and the only life they've ever known.

 

The reason I stated that where do we draw the line is this:

 

I don't want people to tell me or anyone else, for that matter, what is acceptable in raising *my* children. I know that in this case, there was abuse, but, what if it's all of a sudden considered abusive to raise your children with your particular beliefs (whatever those may be)? Or to keep your children home with you and teach them? I don't think we are on the brink of all of that, but, I worry when we (and I guess I mean me in particular) just accept things without realizing their overall implications. NOT to equate what's going on there with what we, as homeschooling parents do, in any way, shape, or form! But, it's just something I think about from time to time.

 

I know that there are countries that are hostile to homeschooling, and there are those that are hostile to certain religious beliefs and parents loose their children because of those things. Things in those countries weren't always that way either, they became that way, slowly, one freedom at a time. I just don't want to close *my* eyes to the potential that someday, maybe, I could turn around and *my* freedoms may be in jeopardy.

[Susan in TX]

I don't want people to tell me or anyone else, for that matter, what is acceptable in raising *my* children. I know that in this case, there was abuse, but, what if it's all of a sudden considered abusive to raise your children with your particular beliefs (whatever those may be)? I just don't want to close *my* eyes to the potential that someday, maybe, I could turn around and *my* freedoms may be in jeopardy.

 

If the way you raise your children and your beliefs are too different from the mainstream of society you run the risk of it being called "abuse". Honestly, I think this case boils down to religious persecution. I don't think anyone has proven that abuse has occured. Now, I'm not saying that there wasn't abuse, but I don't think these people would be treated like this if they were, say, muslim, or simply more mainstream.

 

I can't understand why polygamists are still persecuted in this country when we are allowing for things like same-sex marriage. I also think these groups would do themselves a favor if they waited until girls were 18 to marry.

 

Susan in TX

[sweetTN]

This is a really tough issue. There are so many sides to consider, but I feel the safety of the children must be the first concern.

[Jenstet]

I think it is hard to draw a line between abuse and difference in parenting...in this situation. It all gets lumped in as "wacko"

 

officials have said

-these kids have never seen a TV or a listened to a radio: to my way of thinking not really a bad thing, different but not abuse to me

-one lady commented on the fact that these kids didn't know what to do with crayons: again different but maybe they play with sticks and their imagination.

-they don't have playgrounds for the kids, I don't know if this is true but I don't think it qualifies as abuse to not have a climbing structure.

 

The wacko sick parts are the underage pregancies. Warren Jeffs has admitted he has had inappropriate relations with his OWN DAUGHTERS!! Their "temple" has beds in it for comsumating the "spiritual marriages". It is sad that these mothers have had their children taken away from them, the children likely don't understand. Some of the mothers have been brought up in this environment as well. A lot of these mothers are children themselves. In my opinion it IS a cult, I don't think there is any good answer or outcome here but I feel the officials had to do something.

[Lorna in the boonies]

Wow! I have never met anyone else in my LIFE who knew Eldorado. I haven't been there since I was about five. I remember a restaurant that had this huge, detailed dollhouse filled with miniatures. I was fascinated by that! I suppose it's long-gone by now, but it made a big impression on me at the time.

 

I don't remember ever seeing a dollhouse in any of the restaurants. While I was never looking through the eyes of a little girl, I *have* a couple of little girls who, I am sure, would have been enthralled by such a thing, too -- so my guess is that it is gone.

 

After a century of total obscurity, Eldorado has been thrown into the national news several times in just the past 4-5 years. Just before the FLDS story broke, a bus from one of the Baptist churches (the same Baptist church that first housed many of the women and children, in fact) crashed in Louisiana, killing quite a few members of their congregation (including my son's preschool teacher), and the media descended then. And once the FLDS connection was made known, it happened again (and continues to happen whenever anything comes up with the FLDS). The town has had to adjust to the fact that news media is now a part of life.

 

Eldorado used to be the kind of town where a loose cow on the highway would make the local paper (I'm not kidding -- I've seen it on many occasions). This has thrown the whole county for a loop, and they are handling it admirably.

 

I think it's neat that you have Eldorado roots!:)

[Audrey]

:confused:

 

 

CLARIFYING: I mean, specifically, what do you think about the way the state has come in and taken custody of over 400 children at this stage of the investigation?

 

What else could they do, realistically? The group was investigated and abuse was uncovered on a massive scale. The fact that it is 400 children is what makes it such an issue, yet the state of TX, in an average year, removes about 20,000 children from their homes because of abuse. (Stats for 2005 here see section on Public safety). 400 at once is shocking, but merely a small percentage of children in merely one state that will be removed from their abusive homes.

 

It will be very difficult for those children to be uprooted from the only home they've ever known. This is certainly true.

 

However, the only home they've ever known was a cult, masquerading as religion, and cultivating the wholesale subjugation and exploitation of women and children. For Texas to have done anything less than complete removal of every one of those children would have been criminal in my opinion.

[Lady Katherine]

I think it's neat that you have Eldorado roots! :)

 

I asked my mom if we still have any relatives there, and she said, "Only in the cemetery."

 

:tongue_smilie:

[Lorna in the boonies]

I asked my mom if we still have any relatives there, and she said, "Only in the cemetery."

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

The Eldorado cemetery is the best bargain in the world! You can't buy an individual plot -- you have to buy a 20x20 plot that holds 8 people. When we bought one in 1999 (we have a daughter buried there), we paid a grand total of $35 -- for room for eight!

 

(Not that it matters a bit -- just another useless bit of Eldorado trivia.);)

[PrairieAir]

I'm a little uncomfortable with the way the word "cult" is being thrown about. I'm particularly concerned with the fact that most people consider this FLDS group to be a cult and are using that as a reason for government (or any) outside interference.

 

Dh and I were both raised in a group that many people would have considered a cult and which was in the big book of cults (whatever it was called) at one time. I don't know if it is listed in the most recent edition of that book, and we no longer belong to that group. Our parents personally knew people who were kidnapped by people hired by their parents to brainwash them. At one time my mom did not tell her parents where we were moving because she was worried that her mother would try that. (That was not very unusual for that particular relationship anyway, and the truth is my mom probably almost wished her mother cared that much or at all.)

 

Though we no longer belong to that group, both of us are thankful for the way we grew up and the environment in which we were raised. No one was ever forced to stay or forced to do anything. Even so, comparisons were constantly made to groups like those at Jonestown. It made me a little suspicious of the reports about other cults. After all, how do I really know what went on in Jonestown or Waco if a group I had firsthand experience with was routinely lied about in the media? It also makes me hesitant to rush to judgement on this FLDS group.

 

We have no right to persecute a group based solely on beliefs which differ from the mainstream. No offense intended, but I am most surprised by the comments of several whose stated beliefs I would say appear to be outside the mainstream.

 

All that said, I do think something needed to be done to protect the children--and possibly the women--in this case. There is good reason to believe there was what our LAWS would consider to be abuse in the forced marriages and sex with minors. (This thing about Jeffs and his daughters is new to me, but that is also extremely troubling.) The woman/girl who made the allegations to the police may only be in protected custody to hide her from the other FLDS people. I don't know that it is true that she can't be found by anyone. She is not the only person who has come forward with these reports. Something needed to be done, but I do hope the situation is being handled as delicately as possible as far as the children especially are concerned.

 

For me the bottom line is something Phred already said. Belief should not constitute permission to harm others. Forced marriage and rape and grooming young children for such things from an early age certainly qualify as harm.

[Lady Katherine]

The Eldorado cemetery is the best bargain in the world! You can't buy an individual plot -- you have to buy a 20x20 plot that holds 8 people. When we bought one in 1999 (we have a daughter buried there), we paid a grand total of $35 -- for room for eight!

 

What a bargain! But I'm sorry to hear about your daughter. :(

[mysticamethyst]

My heart is breaking for each one of these children, and that includes the ones that are so young but have children themselves. This whole situation saddens me to my core. There are no right answers as to how to prevent and were we right in going in; which I think we were, but where does it stop? We don't want CPS knocking on our doors for nothing but when is nothing something and when does something become my business, it is all very fuzzy. In Texas, a home school is a private school, no testing, no answering to someone who doesn't know my child; I like it that way. My grandfather use to tell me that FREEDOM is never free. Whether it is the blood of our soldiers or in this case 400 broken families it is the price we pay for someone not being able to look in our house when they want. I do not mean for that to come off as anger or in any other tone in my voice other than sadness. It is the few that make the rest look like whackos. How all the logistics of what laws were broke as far as how many wives a man can have are really not my concern, I am concerned for how the children will fare. I take what the mothers are saying with a grain of salt because they too may have to cover or feel that they do out of fear or the thinking that the way they are treated is acceptable. I will continue to keep all of them in my prayers. :grouphug:

[Merry]

I wonder if there's any way the mothers and children can be kept together and not broken up?

[Twinmom]

One thing that I've noticed hasn't yet been mentioned is what happens to the boys with this group. In other situations like this (polygamist groups) that have hit the news, once the boys hit puberty they are often forced out of the group as they become "competition" to the older men for the girls. There cannot be a surplus of men and have a polygamist group work out well, so some of the "men" have to go. I can remember stories about "lost boys," or boys forced from these groups in their early teens with little to no education or skills and no place to go. They do not fare well.

 

If this has been going on there, perhaps it is one of the many reasons ALL the children were removed rather than just the girls of "marriageable" age (and I use that term VERY loosely! :eek:). As a mom of young boys, it horrifies me to think about what life must be like for those "lost boys." What happens to the young girls is horrifying, IMO, but these boys are truly "lost" and forgotten. Their plight is often not even mentioned.

[Karen sn]

One thing that I've noticed hasn't yet been mentioned is what happens to the boys with this group. In other situations like this (polygamist groups) that have hit the news, once the boys hit puberty they are often forced out of the group as they become "competition" to the older men for the girls. There cannot be a surplus of men and have a polygamist group work out well, so some of the "men" have to go. I can remember stories about "lost boys," or boys forced from these groups in their early teens with little to no education or skills and no place to go. They do not fare well.

 

If this has been going on there, perhaps it is one of the many reasons ALL the children were removed rather than just the girls of "marriageable" age (and I use that term VERY loosely! :eek:). As a mom of young boys, it horrifies me to think about what life must be like for those "lost boys." What happens to the young girls is horrifying, IMO, but these boys are truly "lost" and forgotten. Their plight is often not even mentioned.

 

Wow - hadn't even thought of that! Good point! I would rep you if I knew how!!!!

[*anj*]

I'm a little uncomfortable with the way the word "cult" is being thrown about. I'm particularly concerned with the fact that most people consider this FLDS group to be a cult and are using that as a reason for government (or any) outside interference.

 

I just wanted to point something out. I think that the word "cult" does indeed apply in this case. I understand and empathize with your concern, but from what I've read the FLDS seems to test positive for most of the items on the following list.

 

According to the International Cultic Studies Association the following traits are commonly held by cults:

 

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪The most loyal members (the “true believersâ€) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

 

[PrairieAir]

I just wanted to point something out. I think that the word "cult" does indeed apply in this case. I understand and empathize with your concern, but from what I've read the FLDS seems to test positive for most of the items on the following list.

 

According to the International Cultic Studies Association the following traits are commonly held by cults:

 

‪ The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪The most loyal members (the “true believersâ€) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

 

This definition is certainly more thorough than the dictionary definition. I am not saying this group is not a "cult". I'm just saying that the religious practices of the group, as extreme as they may seem to some, should not be grounds for persecution or the government stepping in unless there is harm being done to unwilling parties. You really can't keep people from harming themselves. The record of the prophets of Baal cutting themselves in the Old Testament comes to mind. Not that I agree with that sort of thing, but as long as they are not inflicting harm on someone else...

 

As I said (earlier in this thread and just now to MIL in a LONG phone conversation), I think it is appropriate that the government stepped in to investigate the situation. Hopefully they are conducting the investigation in the right way, and hopefully children will be returned quickly to those parents who are not guilty of abuse and the wrong doers will be prosecuted.

 

I would also like to address this definition you've given as it applies to my experience. Many of the things on this list were said about The Way International, the group we belonged to. (And I say "belonged" as you would say you "belong" to a church group or a Scout group, for Pete's sake!;))

 

People said that we displayed excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to leadership, but I never found that to be true. Anyone was free to question anyone else and to think for themselves. I never saw the entire group mindlessly following everything that was said. There are individuals in any group who will do that, and I am sure there were individuals in The Way who did as well.

 

I take exception to the whole mind-altering bit. I do speak in tongues. It is not a "mind altering" practice. I have control of when, where, and how I speak in tongues. The holy spirit does not overtake me and force me to speak in tongues and it is not what you have seen in movies or documentaries, let me tell you. I don't meditate--at least not as most would define that word--but I don't believe that is supposed to be a particularly mind-altering practice either. I don't know about these other things you listed and I'm curious about what a debilitating work routine might be. (Is the Marine Corps a cult?)

 

Leadership dictating lifestyle stuff - Some people, my family included, made a commitment to different programs for a certain period. They were always free to leave at any time if they decided it was not for them and entering into that program was their choice as well. My family participated in the Family Corps program and in the Word Over the World (W.O.W.) Ambassador program. The latter was a one year missionary type program--not at all unusual for a church group. The former was a 4-year program: a year of preparation, two years in residence (like Bible college for the adults, kids lived with their families in dorms and went to outside schools), and one year "on the field" in a missionary type assignment or working at one of the locales. At the end of the four year, my mom had earned an associates degree in theology. I have nothing but good things to say about either of those programs and the things I learned there. My life was much like that of any other kid my age except that I had more opportunities to hear the Bible taught and during those two years in residence in the Family Corps we weren't supposed to listen to "worldly music" for the most part because we were supposed to be focusing on other things. (Gasp! Some homeschoolers don't allow their children to listen to secular music either.)

 

The elitest and polarized statements - That did crop up from time to time, but it was never the way it was supposed to be or the way the founder intended. It happened more in later years, and this is part of the reason many people left. No one ever considered any leader the Messiah or any of that.:001_rolleyes:

 

All the rest of the statements did not apply, though the entire list was said of The Way at one time or another. Most of what you read on the internet regarding The Way is not reliable information.

 

There were even a few former members who were disgruntled and said things that I or dh personally know were not true. That's why I take the stories of the women who escaped with a grain of salt, but still feel this needs to be investigated.

 

MIL was very upset this morning. She pointed out the rumors that swirled about The Way at times. She said people said kids were being abused and that they were making people drink poisoned Koolaid, etc. She asked what if the government had chosen to come in and take all of the children who were with The Way. I simply told her that obviously there was not enough proof (because it wasn't happening, duh) that any of that was going on and that's why it did not happen. In the FLDS situation, there seems to be reason to believe abuse is going on and it is being investigated to find out if it is.

 

I would like to point out that as I have no ties to The Way now, there is no reason for me to defend it other than that I am concerned about the truth and about what it means for anyone who wants to go against the mainstream way of doing things. Our freedoms are at stake if we do not act with caution. Condemn the forced underage marriages and any sexual abuse that may be going on, but let's not cloud the real issues with whether or not this is a "cult" or what their (admittedly and to me) odd beliefs might be.

[Jenny in Atl]

One thing that I've noticed hasn't yet been mentioned is what happens to the boys with this group. In other situations like this (polygamist groups) that have hit the news, once the boys hit puberty they are often forced out of the group as they become "competition" to the older men for the girls. There cannot be a surplus of men and have a polygamist group work out well, so some of the "men" have to go. I can remember stories about "lost boys," or boys forced from these groups in their early teens with little to no education or skills and no place to go. They do not fare well.

 

If this has been going on there, perhaps it is one of the many reasons ALL the children were removed rather than just the girls of "marriageable" age (and I use that term VERY loosely! :eek:). As a mom of young boys, it horrifies me to think about what life must be like for those "lost boys." What happens to the young girls is horrifying, IMO, but these boys are truly "lost" and forgotten. Their plight is often not even mentioned.

 

I saw a show on this... very sad. To throw away children.

[5kidsforME]

 

 

The Admins reserve the right to remove frivolous or hurtful rep, but warn that asking them to do "will likely" cause one more harm than good.

 

 

HTH

 

I am confused on this part? Why more HARM then good??? Doesn't make sense to me. :confused: