it's the child abuse, right?

[RedHeadGal]

I have not been able to devote myself to carefuly scrutiny of all the FLDS threads here, but what I keep wondering is what specifically bothers LDS about groups like FLDS.

Is it the child abuse aspect? Meaning if they were taking multiple wives with 19 year-olds as opposed to 14 year-olds, would that still bother you?

Do any of you think polygamy should be legal among consenting adults?

Is it just that LDS don't like being associated with this type of fringe group?

Do you think that there is some kind of unspoken shame about the LDS history of polygamy that underpins the reaction we have to it? (I think there is some of this in me).

Maybe it would be easier if we could just deny the history like the Community of Christ do (former RLDS). You know, they deny Joseph Smith every practiced polygamy at all.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

I have not been able to devote myself to carefuly scrutiny of all the FLDS threads here, but what I keep wondering is what specifically bothers LDS about groups like FLDS.

Is it the child abuse aspect? Meaning if they were taking multiple wives with 19 year-olds as opposed to 14 year-olds, would that still bother you?

Do any of you think polygamy should be legal among consenting adults?

Is it just that LDS don't like being associated with this type of fringe group?

Do you think that there is some kind of unspoken shame about the LDS history of polygamy that underpins the reaction we have to it? (I think there is some of this in me).

Maybe it would be easier if we could just deny the history like the Community of Christ do (former RLDS). You know, they deny Joseph Smith every practiced polygamy at all.

If homosexuality is legal between consenting adults, so then, should polygamy be legal.

[MikeWaters]

First off, as you know, there isn't just one LDS reaction.

Some LDS are piling on in glee.

Other LDS are very concerned about the rush to judgment and the lack of due process.

1. Should a man be legally allowed to have sex with more than one woman (or vice versa) and call that relationship a marriage, even if isn't on the books in the state, and not be arrested and tried? Yes.

2. Child abuse--there is not yet evidence that I have seen, that shows abuse/rape has occurred. I heard salacious reports from the state, now I am hearing counter-commentary that says there are 5 girls pregnant/with kid that are 16-19. So I'm reserving judgment.

3. Most LDS don't like being associated with this fringe group, esp. Warren Jeffs, since in many ways, they don't represent our practices and values.

4. I'm not ashamed of LDS polygamy. Some members are.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

First off, as you know, there isn't just one LDS reaction.

Some LDS are piling on in glee.

Other LDS are very concerned about the rush to judgment and the lack of due process.

1. Should a man be legally allowed to have sex with more than one woman (or vice versa) and call that relationship a marriage, even if isn't on the books in the state, and not be arrested and tried? Yes.

2. Child abuse--there is not yet evidence that I have seen, that shows abuse/rape has occurred. I heard salacious reports from the state, now I am hearing counter-commentary that says there are 5 girls pregnant/with kid that are 16-19. So I'm reserving judgment.

3. Most LDS don't like being associated with this fringe group, esp. Warren Jeffs, since in many ways, they don't represent our practices and values.

4. I'm not ashamed of LDS polygamy. Some members are.

16 or 19? I believe Texas law says that with a parent's permission, a 16-year-old CAN get married. If that is the criteria to take away children, what are they going to do with every other teenager in Texas that gets's pregnant at that age? My guess it's more than just FLDS girls. What is the teenage pregnancy rate across the state? How about in the black community or the hispanic community?

[MikeWaters]

ExUte, you are right. There is no evidence that the pregnancies were not the product of sex with teenage boys. And teenage boys, assuming it is not sexual assault, don't go to jail over that.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

ExUte, you are right. There is no evidence that the pregnancies were not the product of sex with teenage boys. And teenage boys, assuming it is not sexual assault, don't go to jail over that.

I know that people get convicted in court based on circumstantial evidence all the time.

The circumstantial evidence in this case would lead me to believe some older men have impregnated some young girls.

My beef with Texas is their shot gun approach to this thing. I prefer the method that now has Warren Jeffs in jail.

Therefor I disagree with Nancy Grace. Utah and Az are showing the way to deal with this thing and not Texas.

By the way, I only watched one Nancy Grace show. She is at the top of my idiot parade of people who have their own cable shows.

[MikeWaters]

Nancy Grace makes Bill O'Reilly sound thoughtful and intelligent. Of course O'Reilly makes Geraldo sound thoughtful and intelligent.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by exUte

16 or 19? I believe Texas law says that with a parent's permission, a 16-year-old CAN get married. If that is the criteria to take away children, what are they going to do with every other teenager in Texas that gets's pregnant at that age? My guess it's more than just FLDS girls. What is the teenage pregnancy rate across the state? How about in the black community or the hispanic community?

There is no minimum pregnancy age laws, however it was only recently (I believe a little over 2 years ago) that Texas changed their minimum age laws for marriage which when the FLDS had moved into the state were 14 years. Now it is 16. The one 16 year old who is either pregnant or who has children could very well be within the bounds of the laws since any 14 year old brides at the time the laws were changed were certainly grandfathered in (no pun intended).

[exUte]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

There is no minimum pregnancy age laws, however it was only recently (I believe a little over 2 years ago) that Texas changed their minimum age laws for marriage which when the FLDS had moved into the state were 14 years. Now it is 16. The one 16 year old who is either pregnant or who has children could very well be within the bounds of the laws since any 14 year old brides at the time the laws were changed were certainly grandfathered in (no pun intended).

for a sect they didn't approve of? Interesting. So prior, it was ok for a 14-year-old to marry.......as long as they weren't FLDS?

And to those who still claim that the FLDS weren't targeted from the get go are delusional. All it took was a hoax! Nice, Texas!

[RedHeadGal]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

First off, as you know, there isn't just one LDS reaction.

Some LDS are piling on in glee.

Other LDS are very concerned about the rush to judgment and the lack of due process.

1. Should a man be legally allowed to have sex with more than one woman (or vice versa) and call that relationship a marriage, even if isn't on the books in the state, and not be arrested and tried? Yes.

2. Child abuse--there is not yet evidence that I have seen, that shows abuse/rape has occurred. I heard salacious reports from the state, now I am hearing counter-commentary that says there are 5 girls pregnant/with kid that are 16-19. So I'm reserving judgment.

3. Most LDS don't like being associated with this fringe group, esp. Warren Jeffs, since in many ways, they don't represent our practices and values.

4. I'm not ashamed of LDS polygamy. Some members are.

yes, of course I know there are many reactions: I'm asking for individual's thoughts here.

I'm not really talking about the current FLDS example per se, but more theoretically. What is it that bothers any of you about these groups? It seems to me that the typical examples cited about how they are "bad" stem from allegations of child abuse/statutory rape and not anything to do with adults having multiple partners. If that's true, it's not really the polygamy that bothers people but the child abuse.

Which to me begs the questions here about what if these young brides were 19 instead of 14? you say yes, Mike. exUte raises the gay marriage specter, which is fair enough. . . it has similarities, I guess, but I don't see how LDS could attack it in the same way when our people practiced it for so long.