Welcome to the Controversy

Today I planned to introduce a new endeavor. But DH has already written about it, and so I'm taking the lazy way out, and just quoting him:

Click here to read the rest!

Why I would like to have lunch with Amy Brown Lyman

Amy Brown Lyman has intrigued me for many years, and I would love to be able to talk to her over lunch and discover more about her mysterious and tragic life. She died less than a month after I was born, and it seems that many of her secrets died with her.

Click here to read the rest!

Church Handbook of Instructions, Disciplinary Councils, and Prop 8

It has come to my attention that a member of the Church may soon face a disciplinary council for his opposition to Prop 8 in California. I thought it would be interesting to review what the Church Handbook of Instructions has to say about disciplinary councils:

Disciplinary Councils

Because formal Church discipline is ecclesiastical, not civil or criminal, court procedures of the state or nation do not apply. However, procedures in a Church disciplinary council must be fair and considerate of the feelings of all who participate.

When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory

A disciplinary council must be held when evidence suggests that a member may have committed any of the following transgressions.

Murder

As used here, murder refers to the deliberate and unjustified taking of human life. It requires excommunication. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose. If death was caused by carelessness or by defense of self or others, or if mitigating circumstances prevail (such as deficient mental capacity or wartime conditions), the taking of a human life might not be defined as murder. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary

Incest

As used here, incest refers to sexual relations between a parent and a natural, adopted, or foster child or stepchild. A grandparent is considered the same as a parent. Incest also refers to sexual relations between brothers and sisters. It almost always requires excommunication. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Child Abuse

As used here, child abuse refers to a sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child. If priesthood leaders learn of or suspect child abuse, they should follow the instructions on pages 157-58.

Apostasy
As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

1. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishops or higher authority

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority.

In such cases, excommunication may be necessary if repentance is not evident after counseling and encouragement.

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members. The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, but "if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people" (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36).

Total inactivity in the Church or attending or holding membership in another church does not constitute apostasy.

Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression while holding a prominent Church position, such as Area Authority Seventy; temple, mission, or stake president; patriarch; or bishop. As used here, serious transgression is defined as a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but is not limited to) attempted murder, rape, forcible sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury, and false swearing.

Transgressor Who Is a Predator

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression that shows him to be a predator with tendencies that present any kind of serious threat to other persons.

Pattern of Serious Transgressions

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who demonstrates a pattern of serious transgressions, especially if prior transgressions have resulted in Church discipline.

Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known

A disciplinary council must be held for a member who commits a serious transgression (as defined under "Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position" on this page) that is widely known.

When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary

Serious Transgression

Formal Church discipline may be necessary for any member who commits a serious transgression as defined under "Serious Transgression While Holding a Prominent Church Position" on this page.

Abortion

Presiding officers review carefully the circumstances of members involved in abortions. Formal Church discipline may be necessary for members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for abortions. However, Church discipline should not be considered for members who were involved in an abortion before they were baptized or because (1) the pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest, (2) the life or health of the mother was in jeopardy, or (3) the fetus was known to have severe defects that would not allow the baby to survive beyond birth (see page 157). Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Transsexual Operation

Church leaders counsel against elective transsexual operations. If a member is contemplating such an operation, a presiding officer should inform him of this counsel and advise him that the operation may be cause for formal Church discipline. Bishops refer questions on specific cases to the stake president. He may direct questions to the Office of the First Presidency if necessary.

Request for Name Removal

If a member requests that his name be removed from the records of the Church, a disciplinary council may still be necessary if he has committed a serious transgression. Name removal should not be used as a substitute for or alternative to Church discipline. For instructions in these circumstances, see page 130.

When a Disciplinary Council Is Not Necessary

A disciplinary council normally is not necessary in the following instances.

Failure to Comply with Some Church Standards

A disciplinary council should not be held to discipline or threaten members who do not comply with the Word of Wisdom or whose transgressions consist of omissions, such as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church duties.

Business Failures or Nonpayment of Debts

Leaders or members should not use the threat of Church discipline as a form of harassment or as a device to settle business controversies. Business failures and nonpayment of debts are not reasons for convening a disciplinary council. However, a disciplinary council may be held for deceptive practices, false representations, or other forms of fraud or dishonesty in business transactions.

Civil Disputes

Disciplinary councils should not attempt to resolve disputes over property rights or other civil controversies. However, if such a dispute involves accusations that a member has committed acts that would justify Church discipline, the accusations should be treated like any other accusations of transgression.

IF Church leaders are asked to help settle civil disputes, they should act as unofficial, private advisers and should not involve the Church.

Passage of Time

If a member voluntarily confesses a serious transgression that was committed long ago and his faithfulness and service in the intervening years have demonstrated full reformation and repentance, a disciplinary council often is unnecessary.

From your reading of the above instructions, do you feel that local Church leaders are justified in convening a Church court in cases of opposition to Prop 8 in California? For the purposes of our discussion, let us assume that the member has been quite active in his dissent, writing letters to Stake Presidents and Bishops expressing his disagreement with the Church's stance on this issue, and also being involved in collecting signatures online. Let us also assume that the member has been inactive in the Church for some time but has no other issues or transgressions which need to be addressed. Why do you think the Church should or should not hold a Disciplinary Council against such a person?

The Church Handbook gives three purposes of such discipline:
(1) to save the souls of transgressors
(2) to protect the innocent
(3) to safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the Church.

Do you think that holding a Church court in this instance would accomplish any of the above purposes?

When The Constitution Hangs By A Thread--Part Three

(Please note that this post is informed by views expressed in Part One and Part Two of the series.)

In Part 3 of this exploration, I would like to examine not the morality of Gay marriage, but the Constitutionality. At the heart of this issue lies the intention of the Constitution of the United States to "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." (Preamble) The Church teaches that same-sex marriage is immoral and therefore should not be allowed. This religious argument is contrary to the First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" The framers thus sought to protect all Americans from the religious zealotry of a few. Some religious groups do not allow same-gender marriages, and others now recognize those marriages, even allowing clergy in local areas to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Should Americans be made to honor a conception of the Creator they don’t agree with? Of course not! This is why we have separation of Church and State.

The LDS Church has thrown a lot of time and money into supporting amendments to the federal and to state Constitutions which would preserve "traditional" marriage. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not feasible, as such decisions are clearly left up to the states to decide (Tenth Amendment). Besides, the blatant discrimination would violate Amendment Fourteen, which states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Such an Amendment is as laughable as the first proposed Constitutional Amendment on the subject of marriage (1912):

Congressional Record, 62nd Cong., 3rd sess., Dec. 11, 1912. Vol 49, p. 502

Mr. RODDENBERY. ( ... ) The resolution to which I make reference is one already introduced by me, providing for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, with the usual resolving clause, and the article is as follows:

That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term "negro or person of color," as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.

This proposed amendment was unconstitutional because it denied one group of people the equal protection of law (Article Four, Amendment Nine and Fourteen).

The Federal Marriage Amendment, which is supported by the Church treads upon the same shaky ground. It's been very confusing to me to see how the Church feels free to step in to this "moral issue," even though it is one which threatens the Constitutional rights of a large group of people. Perhaps what bothers me the most is the wording of the proposed amendments to both Federal and various state Constitutions, which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. By supporting this, is the Church burning all of its bridges and more or less making a declaration that it will never again practice or support polygamy? It feels like a repudiation and denial of our past.

Though I don't believe the Church as an institution should directly interfere in these matters, it seems to me that if they were to support a course of action to reinforce the moral stand they have taken, they should look at how the issue was handled in Vermont. This state allows same-sex couples to enter into civil unions or domestic partnerships that provide some of the rights and responsibilities of marriage under state law. This protects the unique institution of conjugal marriage and does not force any religious group to change its theology or traditions, as well as preserving Constitutional rights.

Readers, do you think the Church's involvement in the proposed marriage amendments is supportive of the Constitution (our Heavenly Banner)? Do you think that by supporting marriage for one man and one woman the Church is repudiating plural marriage as an eternal principle?

My brethren and sisters, I hope that we will go home from this conference determined as a great body of people, to stand for law, order, righteousness, justice and peace on earth and good will among all men. I believe as the Prophet Joseph has written, that the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution. I have never read that that thread would be cut. It will hang; the Constitution will abide and this civilization, that the Lord has caused to be built up, will stand fortified through the power of God, by putting from our hearts all that is evil, or that is wrong in the sight of God, by our living as we should live, acceptable to him. (Charles W. Nibley, Conference Report, October 1922, p. 40.)

It was Joseph Smith who has been quoted as having said that the time would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread and at that time when it was thus in jeopardy, the elders of this Church would step forth and save it from destruction.
Why the elders of this Church? Would it be sacrilegious to paraphrase the words of the Apostle Peter, and say that the Constitution of the United States could be saved by the elders of this Church because this Church and this Church alone has the words of eternal life? We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation. The preservation of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” can be guaranteed upon no other basis than upon a sincere faith and testimony of the divinity of these teachings. (Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1952, p. 18.)

When The Constitution Hangs By A Thread--Part One

In a 1991 address, BYU President Rex E. Lee noted that compared to any other kind of law--including statutory, regulatory, or judge-made common law--constitutional law is very difficult to make or change.

"The central feature of the American Constitution is that with only one exception [the Thirteenth Amendment, prohibits slavery], its provisions are confined to limiting the powers of government... The Constitution contains some fairly obvious, though not always specific, prohibitions concerning what government--federal, state, or local--can do to its citizens. Some of the most prominent are protections for the criminally accused, such as the privilege against self-incrimination, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to counsel, and jury trial."

Lee goes on to discuss how spreading the powers of government among several separate entities and by making each a competitor with the others makes it less likely that these entities can gain the power to become oppressive. Without the Constitution and the rights that were guaranteed to us, the Mormons would not have survived as a people. This was the only nation and the only set of laws under which the Lord could have restored his Church.

Despite its strength, Latter-day Saints have been warned that one day the Constitution would be found in danger. The Prophet Joseph Smith thus prophesied in his famous "hanging by a thread" speech; and more than half of his successors repeated the admonition. I am well aware that Joseph's declaration has been quoted every time a tax increase comes along, or a failure to collect the garbage on time, or during a boundary dispute with a neighbor, as Lee so humorously puts it.

But today we have before us two Constitutional issues which deeply concern the Latter-day Saints. The first is the actions of the Texas legal system against the FLDS at the Yearning for Zion ranch. The second is the ruling of the California Supreme Court that a ban on gay marriage violates its constitution.

These two issues are of extreme importance to Mormons as they strike to the heart of the Proclamation on the Family. In the coming week I plan to discuss each issue, examine the Constitutional issues at stake, and probe the responsibilities of Mormons to engage these topics. I find it interesting that despite their relevance, the Church hierarchy has seen fit to combat one, while doing everything possible to distance themselves from the other.

How deeply should the Church be involved in these Texas and California legal battles? There are at least two perspectives. One view points out that the Church represents itself as non-partisan and should not throw its weight and the tithing money of its diverse membership into political issues. Another position is that the Church must take a stand on moral matters. The Joseph Smith prophecy is instructive in this regard:

"When the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the Mormon elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it." –Brigham Young, JD 2:182, February 18, 1855

"I believe that it is the destiny of the Latter-day Saints to support the Constitution of the United States. The Prophet Joseph Smith is alleged to have said—and I believe he did say it—that the day would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread. But he saw that the thread did not break, thank the Lord, and that the Latter-day Saints would become a balance of power, with others, to preserve that Constitution. If there is—and there is one part of the Constitution hanging as by a thread today—where do the Latter-day Saints belong? Their place is to rally to the support of that Constitution, and maintain it and defend it and support it by their lives and by their vote. Let us not disappoint God nor his prophet. Our place is fixed." -Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, April 1933, p. 127.

What part will we have in the coming days and months, in supporting the Constitution of the United States? What form might this support take? Please comment with your opinion, and come back for Parts 2 and 3 of this discussion.

FLDS Pregnancies or Incendiary Tactics?

This post is to those of you who are shocked by the headlines you are reading today saying that 31 of 53 of the YFZ girls abducted by Texas CPS ages 14 to 17 have children, are pregnant, or both. Attorneys on the scene are warning that the numbers are extremely unreliable and that those interested in the case should remain cautious about believing these media reports. The tally of women and children has changed almost daily over the past three weeks. Amanda Chisholm, who works for TRLA, said she would be surprised if the actual number of teenage girls who are pregnant or mothers is "anywhere near that high."

Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar admitted that the age of the girls was determined by their attorneys or by looking at the women. "I have seen them myself," he said, "and I don't see any that look like an adult to me."

"My clients told us they were put in a line and looked at," said attorney Julie Balovich. "So I know that is how some of the numbers happened."

Azar also did not know how many girls were pregnant, but acknowledged that it is a small number. In earlier reports, CPS said that three teenagers are pregnant. Salt Lake attorney Rod Parker, a spokesman for the FLDS, said that of the three, one teenager refused to take a pregnancy test, one is 18 and the other is 17.

One problem in determining the ages of the girls is that some women may be claiming to be minors in order to stay with their children. TRLA attorney Julie Balovich said one woman now deemed to be a teenager is a 24-year-old woman who is pregnant. FLDS member Willie Jessop contends the state's tally also includes a 28-year-old whom the state has listed as being 17.

Another problem in these tallies is that the state is using a list which has been compiled of 20 minors and young women who conceived their first child between the ages of 13 and 16. The list includes women who had children ten or more years ago. For example, one woman was 13 when she conceived a child who was born in 1997! Another woman was 14 when she conceived a child born in 2000--eight years ago. Some of the women conceived children in other states, or before the change in Texas law regarding the age of consent. An interesting point to me would be how the age of pregnancy of the FLDS has changed over time, or since the arrest of Warren Jeffs. Is the sect attempting to comply with the laws of the state?

A final consideration for many is the number that was released regarding the teenaged boys in custody. The media is reporting that while there are 53 girls between those ages there are only 17 boys. I am wondering why they are not including or mentioning the 25 adolescent boys who were taken away from the main group very early in this raid and placed on a boys' ranch. Perhaps there are other boys who are away working and are not "lost." This is another example of half-truths intended to mislead the public.

I am really getting so annoyed with this media hype, playing on the concern of Americans for abused children. I prefer to look at this in the light of a wider world view. Throughout the world and over time and cultures, girls who begin menarche are considered women. They begin to marry and bear children. It has been in the past 100 years only that we have decided that young girls should have more choice and should put off childbearing until later. As a feminist, I believe this is a good thing. But who is to say that it is the only true and proper choice? Some studies have shown that childbearing at younger ages is healthier and more optimal for infant and mother. I believe in the right of this group to choose their family patterns and customs. Teaching their children to submit is not abuse, it is a different lifestyle choice. There are many tenets of this faith which are clearly healthier and more moral than mainstream teachings.

Ever since this case began, I have felt that persecution has been rampant. This is not the way to solve problems or difficulties within the religion. True believers will only cling to their faith more adamantly, seek to withdraw and hide from society and bear wounds from this forced separation for generations.

Both Sides Now---Legal Ramifications of YFZ Case

Photo by Trent Head

So many things I could have done---but worry over the YFZ Ranch got in the way. Now that this case is in court, I've been looking the issue from two legal points of view:

The Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. See also the Fifth Amendment on Due Process.

Is this case based on a fraudulent phone call to authorities? One commenter said:

If these kids are actually being abused the government has stepped on their dicks so badly they won't be able to do anything about it.

I think this is an accurate summation of the legal problems in the case. If law enforcement searches, seizes, or incarcerates a person under false pretenses, it doesn't matter what is found after the fact, it is inadmissable. It now appears that the phone call upon which this is all based is fraudulent. If so, the only way the children can be taken away from their parents will blatantly violate the rights of U.S. citizens. It will set a dangerous precedent for many groups including Mormons, Muslims, homeschoolers, and the Amish (who have a very isolated lifestyle and the practice of young marriages).

THE FACTS:

1. No complaining victims exist and the original abuse allegations were fraudulent, pumped up in the media by anti-polygamist activists.



2. No pregnant girls were found at the YFZ Ranch who were under 16 (the legal marriage age in Texas, with parental consent).



3. 10 women between the ages of 16 and 19 were listed as married to older men. Five were listed as having children.
   
   
4. Angie Voss from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has testified that the supposition that abuse may happen some day in the future justifies the removal of over 400 children of both sexes and all ages from their environment.

If this doesn't bother you, will you please explain what you will do when your neighbor reports you to CPS because they don't like your religion, and your children are removed from your home, along with every child from every family in your ward?? What will you say if they discover that a former Bishop or Sunday School teacher is a sex offender or viewer of pornography?

Read More:
In Distressed About the FLDS Situation, J. Max Wilson writes about his experiences reporting abuse to CPS in Texas and being told that "unless there is physical evidence of abuse, the chances of getting abused children removed from their parents into the safety of state care are practically nil." He questions why his experience was so different from what happened to the FLDS, and wonders what the implications may be for homeschoolers.

D and E Grounds

§ 161.001. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP.
The court may order termination of the parent-child relationship if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence: (1 that the parent has:(D knowingly placed or knowingly allowed the child to remain in conditions or surroundings which endanger the physical or emotional well-being of the child; (E) engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the child with persons who engaged in conduct which endangers the physical or emotional well-being of the child. See also Texas Family Code, Chap. 262.

Ron in Houston puts it this way:

There was once a good mother. She loved her kids. She took pretty good care of them and they loved her. She was by no means was a perfect mother, but then again, who among us is the "perfect" parent?

Mom's only flaw as a parent was that she allowed older men around her 14 [let's change this to read 16, since we have no evidence of 14-year-old YFZ brides] year old daughter who wanted to have sex with her daughter. She was so addicted to the approval of these older men that she would forget about her daughter to obtain the approval of these men she admired.

Mom went before a judge who said that since she was so dependent on the approval of these older men that she could not protect her child and therefore her children needed to be placed in foster care.

The judge never knew what the mother's religion was. The judge just acted on the facts of the case.

Ron's parable will appeal to those who see sex between 16-19 year old girls and much older men as just plain wrong no matter what religious views might dictate. Since the plural marriages are unrecognized by the state, these relationships can be labeled statutory rape, regardless of whether or not the parents supported the union. Those who take this view will likely agree that the younger children on the compound should be removed from a home and religion that will teach these principles.

Now, I've got some leading questions to ask you. I'd love to hear the opinions of some of our Bloggernacle lawyers!

--Is it legally justified to remove ALL women and ALL children from their homes based on a warrant for the arrest of ONE man and in looking for ONE young woman described by the 9-1-1 caller as an abused vicitm?
--Do you think that the that the sealed affidavit that triggered the investigation at the ranch listed sufficient evidence to search "each and every residence, structure, school, vehicle, place of business, temple or other facility" of an "unincorporated city or neighborhood of 300 to 400 residents that includes single and multiple family homes, a doctor's office, a cheese manufacturing plant, a cement plant and other buildings spread over 1,691 acres"?
--Is it legally justified to order DNA evidence from all families based on one allegation?
--Do the Fourth Amendment rights will override the D and E statute and the Texas Family Code? Or does it not apply since this is a civil and not a criminal case?
--Do you think the religion of the parents should be taken into account in this case?
--Is religious indoctrination currently a legal justification for removal of a child from a family?
--Do you think the families are being presumed guilty until proven innocent?

*Please attempt to confine your remarks here to your thoughts on the legal issues, and refrain from expressing your personal moral outrage on either side of the question.

Beds and Temples

"Officials have completed removing all 416 children from the ranch and have won custody of all of them," say the latest reports on the Texas FLDS incident. I'm completely flummoxed at how the Yearning for Zion group is being treated. I believe their civil rights are being violated on the strength of an anonymous phone call by a girl they have yet to identify. News reports are extremely slanted. For example, look at the report of "marriage" beds found in their temple. Does it surprise you to know that we have beds in our temples also? Several years ago when I was pregnant, I felt some vertigo during a session, and was taken to an area in the temple for medical attention and to lie down!

My completely unsolicited opinion is that authorities should open up channels of communication whereby girls and women who would like to voluntarily leave this group can receive some support in doing so. Other than this, children should not be removed from their homes. "Indoctrination" which takes place among the FLDS is no worse, in my view, than children as young as 13 who are exposed to sex and violence through media, or given birth control at home or in school! What is happening in this case sets a dangerous precedent. Now read what a former FLDS member has to say about this situation:

"THESE PEOPLE NEED A VOICE!

I left the FLDS three years ago when I was 23. I had a very happy childhood free from television, drugs, and abuse. These are some of the things I personally witnessed:

When a girl thought she was ready to get married, she would tell her father that she was ready to move on. Her father would turn her over to the prophet (Rulon or Warren Jeffs) to be placed in marriage. I saw Rulon many times tell the girl that she needed to be 18 before she was married, and I saw some girls ask to be married anyway, and sometimes he would give in to their request. It was not a common thing to see a girl younger than 15 get married, but if they did, it was always the result of her father putting a lot of pressure on Rulon or Warren to do something about their daughter. No one was ever forced. I saw several girls tell the prophet that she didn't want to marry so and so and that was the end of it (I know this because word really got around). Rulon and Warren always asked a girl if she had anyone in mind before she was placed with someone. Sometimes they would ask for an older guy with several wives already.

You've got to realize that the only thing these girls really lived for was getting married and having children. They do not have the same mindset as your typical teenage girl. Some were rebellious and wild teenagers sure, but 90% of the girls I grew up with only wanted to get married and have children. At the same time, 90% of the men didn't want their daughters to leave home and were very protective of them. My father wept when my older sister got married (she was 19) but he knew it would make her happy.

As for the men. 95% of the men I knew were honorable and trustworthy. They had beautiful families that loved them and would do anything for them. "by their fruits you shall know them". I challenge anyone to look at those children in Texas and honestly say "they are a product of pedophiles and immorality". An example of immorality would be someone that advertises their body by wearing next to nothing, uses foul language, uses drugs and exhibits no self control. You will not find that with these people. Sex is not even in their vocabulary. Literally.

I personally know every man on that Ranch in Texas. Search the world over, you will not find men more dedicated, more committed, and more focused on living in Peace and living their religion than within that group. They do not care what anyone else does, they only want to live their religion.

You should also note, half of the children raised within the FLDS, end up leaving on their own free will and choice. 95% of them you will never hear from again. 5% seem to spread rumor and false accusations everywhere they turn either because they are lonely and need someone or something to blame, or because they really were hurt or abused and somehow think it's the church's fault.

As for this raid in Texas here are some interesting facts:

1)There is only one Dale Barlow over the age of 40 within the FLDS. This man was convicted of fathering a child with a 16 year old two years ago. He has been on probation ever since and is not allowed to leave the state of Arizona except to report to his probation officer in St. George, UT. Authorities know where he is and he has not yet been arrested. (There is another member whose name is spelled Dell but he is in his late 60's)

2)There is absolutely no physical evidence that this 16 year old who supposedly called in to report abuse even exists. Anyone could have made that call.

3)Anyone that thinks there is something wrong with having a bed in a temple that has disturbed linen and a female hair, is assuming WAY too much.

4)If I was a four year old child and I was taken away from my loving mother and father, I would be confused and hurt and would probably find a way of seeing how it was my fault.

5)The media keeps saying that 100 something women left on their own? They simply refuse to let their children go without them.

6)There are three sides to every news story and so far, everyone is getting only two. People that have left and are bitter, and people that are jumping to conclusions. I would like to be the third because I know these people, I am a product of these people and I believe they should be understood and left alone.

I left on my own accord because I was standing in the way. I wasn't ready to give up material things and I didn't believe Warren Jeffs was a prophet. I drew my own conclusion, and every member of that church is fully capable of doing the same if they so choose." austlittlebeast@yahoo.com

I was touched as I read of the men who knelt outside their temple and prayed and wept as it was desecrated. Someone has sent me a link to the song Warren Jeffs wrote, and after which the compound is named. Go here and listen. It's a haunting piece, and the twang in the voice of the vocalist recalls the long-braided, home-sewn dresses in the pictures we've been seeing. However much we may wish to distance ourselves, this is our tradition. The words and sentiments are our own, and these people are being treated exactly as we were 150 years ago.

Yearning for Zion
by Warren Jeffs



Heavenly beings have come to direct the work of the fulness of times:
To bring to pass Zion, the Lord’s pure in heart, a people perfected in Christ.
Who will be Zion, filled with his love, laboring now with the hope
Of a glorious day, when Zion shall rise, and the words of the prophets unfold.
When Zion shall flourish upon the hills, the wilderness blossoming fair as the rose,
When Zion comes singing with songs of great joy
With praise and thanksgiving assembles to worship our Lord

Oh, Zion!
Put on thy beautiful garments,
Which are the powers and gifts of his Spirit in you,
Draw from the heavens the almighty power to build and redeem again Zion!
Oh, hearken all Israel!
Live for the promise of God.
Our Savior shall dwell in our midst
For the household of faith he will stretch forth his arm
And bring forth the redemption of Zion.

Imagine the people of Enoch of old, trained in the order of heaven
A beautiful city the Lord called his own and forever made his abode
Coming to join with the Zion on earth when finally the earth finds its rest
A kingdom established in celestial laws, a people the Lord can accept
A New Jerusalem it will be, a land of refuge, a city of peace
Upon every dwelling the Lord shall create
A cloud for a covering, a flaming

Symbolically, the song cuts off here.
Oh, Zion!

Yearning for Zion and the Texas Polygamists

It sure is a good thing they changed that Temple Recommend Question--you know the one I'm talking about: Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? They used to ask you if you sympathized with such groups, and I always had to answer "yes." (Never kept me from getting my recommend, btw.)

I do sympathize with fundamentalist groups, now let me tell you why.

1. Joseph Smith and the early leaders of the Church taught the doctrine of plural marriage, which they called "celestial marriage." When we read certain passages in the D&C discussing the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, we should understand that this was referring to plural marriage. Thus members of the early Church were taught that in order to enter into the highest degree of celestial glory, they must live "The Principle."


2. I've always felt a warm spot in my heart for those who wish to separate themselves from "the world." I often wondered if I had not joined the Church, if I might not have gone to live on "The Farm," a commune in Tennessee; or a kibbutz in Israel.


3. Within the fundamentalist groups I have seen a religious fervor and zeal which I admire and imagine existed in the early LDS Church. Those who stand up for their beliefs against great persecution are admirable. The Prophet Joseph taught that "a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation."

Now, don't get me wrong! I believe in a living prophet today, and I follow the standard Mormon teachings on this subject. But that doesn't stop me from understanding where fundamentalist Mormons are coming from, and sympathizing with their position.

That's why I've followed with interest the building of the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) compound in Eldorado, Texas. (Pics here.) Even the name of the place breaks my heart. It's taken from a song written by FLDS leader Warren Jeffs. I am disposed to believe that this is a group of people who yearns for Zion. They are willing to put their earthly lives and interests on the line for their religious beliefs. One member writes:

"I wonder why people think Plural Marriage is a sin. I know for myself that it is a correct principle and must be lived to attain the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. I also know that most people I have known that enter the principle, do not live it correctly. So it is not for everyone. So why is it so bad to some people, for a man to claim two women as wives, take care of them and treat them as wives in every sense of the word, and for some reason it is not quite as bad for a man to have a wife and a mistress? Or is it? To me, THAT is awful."

And another polygamist muses:

"I don't know of a better reason, to live it, than that it is a commandment of God. If is was not a commandment of God, and that was my desire (to keep the commandments of God) then I am sure I would not choose to. I believe that every person must live according to the light and knowlege they have, in order to come to God at the Judgment day and have no regrets."

This morning I read the news reports that 137 children were removed from the compound by Texas Child Protective Services in an effort to determine if they are "at risk." 46 women were also bused from the compound and are being cared for by local churches. The operation came in response to claims that a 16-year-old girl had been abused. The Deseret News has reported that a 16-year-old girl who lives on the compound called Child Protective Services on Monday to report the incident. Some accounts identify her with a 16-year-old girl who was forced to marry 50-year-old Dale Barlow. Records show that she bore a child 8 months ago, at age 15. Dale Barlow is in Arizona, according to his probation officer, and he claims he doesn't know who made the report. Nobody can say who the girl is that reported abuse, and they have yet to find her. Teams are now searching the compound for this girl. Reports indicated that the SWAT team has entered the YFZ Temple under protest from FLDS faithful. I am so sorry to hear about this situation. It is a tense one for all involved.

These marriages between older men and young women certainly merit concern. But, as when I am answering the Temple Recommend questions, my sympathies are aroused. As Latter-Day Saints, we pressure our 8-year-old children to enter an important covenant. I myself have indoctrinated my children to do this because of my firm belief in certain religious precepts. My stay in the country of Saudi Arabia has acquainted me with girls who have been pressured into arranged marriages to older men. Some of the girls I teach in the university are under 21 years of age and have children 4 and 5 years old. They proudly show me their children's pictures on their cell phones. This is a cultural practice I disagree with, but it is not unlike that practiced by the FLDS. Some of you who have visited my blog have taken issue with those who would "export our values and culture to places that already have their own."

As you read the rant of an anonymous FLDS member you can see how they feel about 137 of their small children being removed from their homes:

"You have been fed a steady diet of bull puckey for long enough, why don't you try something else, your taste buds would enjoy it I'm sure. A strong mind is one that thinks for itself, not believes every malcontent filthy liar and every bit of media spin. Nobody, and I mean nobody is being raped!! I promise you that the 6 month old babies aren't being raped. I know of one 14 year old marriage, but in general the girls are older than that, you can keep bringing that up for your purpose of sensationalism as long as you'd like, it still doesn't make it the truth. I also know that every person is given a choice or asked if they are willing, they are not forced into the marriages, and you can go ahead and give us your drivel about brainwashing all you want to, I know I've been there, I wasn't brain washed, I loved what I lived... I made a choice, I was asked and I made that choice, so you will say I was brainwashed. Hogwash. Free will and choice, and a beautiful choice at that, I would way rather be married to a wonderful man that has matured and mellowed, than a young know it all buck... The people of the United States are the ones who are brain washed, with all the TV, sports... Only the Lord God of Heaven has the right to judge us, you don't and I don't have the right to judge you. The United States of America is supposed to be where you can practice what you believe..."

What do you think? If you truly believed it would help her gain celestial glory, would you encourage your 15-year-old daughter to marry an older man? Did your LDS forebears do this very thing? What about our revered Prophets of the Latter days?

His Hand is Stretched Out Still--Musings on Doctrine, Apostasy, and Gay Marriage

For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

When you read the words of the prophet Isaiah that [the Lord's] hand is stretched out still, does it give you comfort, or does it cause you to tremble?

The phrase is a picturesque one, occurring four times in Isaiah chapters 9 and 10 (9:12, 17, 21; 10:4). These chapters are included in the Isaiah passages found in the Book of Mormon. The refrain has been interpreted in two different ways in biblical exegesis.


The Lord's Arm Stretched Out in Mercy

In the consensus of LDS thought, it is explained that although the House of Israel has sinned and the Lord's anger is not turned away, yet his hand is stretched out to forgive and redeem his people. A footnote to Isaiah 9:12 clarifies the phrase as follows: "In spite of it all, the LORD is available if they will turn to him," and refers the reader to the Topical Guide heading "God, Access to."

In his Oct 2006 Conference address "Prophets in the Land Again," Jeffrey R. Holland reflected this interpretation of the phrase when he stated,

To all of you who think you are lost or without hope, or who think you have done too much that was too wrong for too long, to every one of you who worry that you are stranded somewhere on the wintry plains of life and have wrecked your handcart in the process, this conference calls out Jehovah’s unrelenting refrain, “[My] hand is stretched out still.” ...His is the pure love of Christ, the charity that never faileth, that compassion which endures even when all other strength disappears. I testify of this reaching, rescuing, merciful Jesus, that this is His redeeming Church based on His redeeming love..."

LDS audiences are most familiar with this interpretation of Isaiah's poetic chorus. After watching BYU Broadcasting "Insight into Isaiah," Kelly Miller wrote her own verses on the subject. Part of Kelly's poem reads:

As He extends mercy and assurance
His softly flowing waters fill,
Ever offering hope and guidance.
Where e'er we turn, His hand is stretched out still.

The Lord's Arm Stretched Out in Judgment

Little do most Mormons realize there is another way of looking at this familiar phrase. Note the context in Nephi's quotation of Isaiah 5:

Therefore, is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them; and the hills did tremble, and their carcasses were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. (2 Nephi 15:25)

In this interpretation the Lord's hand is stretched out in judgment against a rebellious nation. Moeller's commentary on Isaiah 9 reads:

Here God declares himself as the one who is bringing these calamities. The reason: because the punishments have not turned the people to him. Since they continue in their abandonment of the source of their help he will allow further calamities to overtake them. ...There was more to come from the hand of a wrathful God. This series will only end with the complete destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel and their extinction as a political entity.

As I've read the details of the Danzig case, I can only repeat Isaiah's words, over and over, in my mind. I've been reflecting upon these verses as compared to the Church's reactions toward perceived "apostasy" by its members. The hierarchy seems to see itself as the outstretched hand of the Lord, always there with mercy to welcome back the repentant sinner. Yet, members who struggle with reconciling their consciences with Church policies are recipients of the harsher treatment of the refrain. To these, the Church's hand continues to stretch forth in judgment and punishment rather than mercy and healing.

What I have seen of these very public cases over the years are members who sincerely believe in the Church yet struggle with ambiguity. I relate to the Danzig's dilemma since I was present in California when the Church became involved in helping to pass Proposition 22. As members, we were asked to participate in making phone calls supporting the initiative, and to place signs in our front yards. Much pressure was placed upon members in this effort. A few years later, having moved to Texas, a similar situation presented itself. This time, members of the ward sat through a fifth-Sunday combined PH/RS meeting where the position of the Church regarding gay marriage was delineated and members were pressed to spend time and money in passing the legislature. I am strongly in favor of the Church's official position on political neutrality, and believe that on the gay marriage issue this position is being strongly violated.

In an LDS press release, Church representatives stated,

"In his Tribune letter-to-the-editor, Mr. Danzig said he 'was troubled that my church requested I violate my own conscience to write in support of an amendment I feel is contrary to the constitution and to the gospel of Christ.' In reality Church leaders had asked members to write to their senators with their personal views regarding the federal amendment opposing same gender marriage, and did not request support or opposition to the amendment."

This may be the official position of the Church, but it has not been the case in my personal experience, either.

The release also contained this: "Church leaders are always saddened when an individual, whether through his or her actions or personal choices, decides to leave the Church. A welcoming hand of fellowship is always extended to those who wish to return at anytime."

For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

UPDATE!! Come join an interesting discussion on these issues at George's blog Periginatioanimae!

Can I Put My Earrings Back In Now?

As I grow older, I'm not getting wiser, I'm just getting more confused. I spent a lot of time and energy as a young mother coming to terms with strange doctrines such as God was once a man and the literal conception of Jesus, only to have these demphasized twenty years later. It took a lot of faith and struggle to follow the counsel of Church leaders back then not to use birth control and to have as many children as possible (not to mention their counsel on sexual practices between married couples!). Now it feels like the sacrifice I made has no meaning. Young couples today are told to pray about the decision of how many children to have. I wonder what my family would look like if that had been the counsel I was given. How would it have affected my strained relationship with my husband, my years of depression? How much better could I have done as a mother and as a member of the community?

As time goes by and I measure the years of my Church membership in decades, I see big changes. I welcome many of these, but struggle with feelings of anger. Why was my marriage and my Church membership burdened with the hard patriarchy rhetoric while men and women enjoy much more equality today? What would my choices and opportunities have been if the emphasis on education for women had been preached when I was 21?

Some of the changes are not welcome. I don't see the need for us to defend our status as "Christians." When I joined the Church, I worked for and gained a testimony of our distinctive doctrines, and I don't like to see them watered down so that we can fit in better with evangelical interest groups.

I've seen the reorganization of 5 First Presidencies now, and it will be interesting to see what new directions they will take us. I'm excited about the Church today. I see more acceptance of diversity. I see more openness in dealing with Mormon history. There is an effort at distinguishing between Mormon culture and doctrine. I see a better understanding of international issues. But I fear I'm becoming an LDS dinosaur.

The List

This year marks my 12th consecutive year of having daughters in the YW program, and I've become accustomed to having little lists lying around the house enumerating the qualities the girls would like to see in their future spouses. This ritual is a strange one which I think must be peculiar to the Latter-day Saints. I tend to view it as rather pernicious and dangerous. Perhaps its roots lie in good intentions. Indeed girls should be looking for young men to date who are following certain standards. I believe that communication should take place before young people get seriously involved so that a girl who wants 10 children doesn't end up married to a boy who doesn't want any. However, the lists I've taken out of pockets in the laundry tend to include items like "he should have blue eyes," "must be rich and have good taste in ties," or "will already have graduated from med school." Are my daughters simply being facetious in what they are writing on these lists? Or are they really culling from my future family possible brown-eyed son-in-laws?

What is the purpose of such a particular list? Should a girl who considers education important really refrain from dating a good LDS boy because he plans on becoming a mechanic rather than aspiring to a degree in medicine? What happens when she falls in love with a boy who doesn't meet every requirement on her list? Will she always feel in her heart that she lowered her standards to marry this individual? How will this girl react when (as happened in one of our Ward Standards Nights) a bright-eyed newlywed pulls a list out of her journal and gushes that the man she married fulfilled every requirement on her list?

Well, it must be that time of year again, for this week I found two lists written by each of my two teen-aged daughters. This list was a pre-printed one from some apocryphal YW materials entitled "A Future Husband" and which included several categories of inspection. The YW leader, in a burst of creativity, had the girls cross out the word "husband" and write in "wife." Apparently they were to decide what qualities they were to develop which would make them a worthy wife to the man they would someday marry. This seemed an improvement upon the standard, but upon perusal, I still became disturbed.

Following are the results of each list:

(14-year-old daughter) A FUTURE HUSBAND WIFE: Career Objective Job to fall back on (lawyer?) Spiritual Preparation Patriarchal Blessing Temple Recommend Mission Caregiver Education At least a college degree Law Degree Well Educated Special Skills Know how to care for house and family Have good work ethics Selflessness Good teacher Kindness Talents/Hobbies/Interests Piano player Reading Play sports Physical Traits Appreciate my body Good hygiene Treat body like a temple

(16-year-old daughter) A FUTURE HUSBAND WIFE: Career Objective Something to fall back on Spiritual Preparation Worthy to go to Temple R.M. Education College graduate Special Skills Good with kids Trustworthy Honest Talents/Hobbies/Interests Physical Traits Healthy

This was all quite a surprise to me. First of all--my readers will know that BiV has never taught her children that a career is "something to fall back on." Why did both of my daughters use these same words? Is this something our YW are being taught in Church? Should women look upon a career as simply "something to fall back on?" Does my intelligent 14-year-old have a passion for law? Does her question mark indicate an awareness of its unsuitability as a backup career, or is she unsure if this choice of career will fit in with the Latter-day wife expectation?

And my amazing, multi-talented 16-year-old wrote nothing down in the space provided for talents/hobbies/interests. Did she just get bored with the activity, or doesn't she think her talents or interests would be useful in her future role as wife?

I'm especially interested to know if any of these responses would have changed if the purpose of the list had been to describe "MY FUTURE ASPIRATIONS" instead of "A FUTURE WIFE??"

Fantasy Bonds in Eternal Marriages

This was another session I attended at Sunstone Symposium. It was given by Michael Farnsworth, EdD, an educational psychologist who recently retired from the marriage and family relations dept. at BYU Idaho.

The words "fantasy bonds" were, in my opinion, a little misleading in this presentation. Michael was using the terminology given by Robert Firestone to roleplays that husbands and wives develop in their marriages. Fantasy bonds are culturally defined duties that people begin to act out in their marriages. They can eventually become bonds which hold the couple back from intimacy.

Michael said that intimacy is an acquired taste--many cannot stand the passion that true intimacy brings. When we fear our own and others' energies, we can form fantasy bonds as a psychological defense to marital distress. Mormon women have a great tendency to slip into this role-playing behavior. Once a young wife enters into the pattern, all her decisions are made for her. She will have many children, she will not work outside the home, she will hold Church callings, etc. Michael warns of three dangers to this reaction, and I have observed these myself.

1. The relationship can become superficial
2. The marriage partners are embroiled in continual conflict
3. One of the partners surrenders their voice

Thus, Michael suggested that personal identity has to be established before relationship identity can be formed.

The respondent to this talk was Ronda Callister, PhD and professor of organizational behavior at Utah State. She presented the point of view that developing a resilient identity is the work of a lifetime. She said that had she waited until personal identity was established before she was married, it would have been a very long time! Then she shared some steps she had taken in developing a resilient identity and encouraging intimacy in her marriage.

I enjoyed this presentation but I found it very difficult to listen to, since I neither see myself as having a very well-developed sense of identity nor much intimacy within my marriage.