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!

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 Two

Let us very quickly review two of the Constitutional Amendments which apply to the FLDS situation in Texas:

• First Amendment: addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congressional establishment of a religion over another religion through Law and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition.


• Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court.

And here are two other Amendments which may very likely come into play before the trial has run its course:

• Fifth Amendment: among other things, forbids punishment without due process of law; and prohibits government from taking private property without just compensation.


• Sixth Amendment: guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury, guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. It also guarantees the accused a right to know the charges against him.

These form part of the Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. In addition, I would like to provide a definition of statutory rape:

The criminal offense of statutory rape is committed when an adult sexually penetrates a person who, under the law, is incapable of consenting to sex. Overt force or threat need not be present. The age of consent and other differentials are to be determined by the state. In Texas, for instance, the age of consent is 17 and the minimum age of child is 14 with an age differential of 3 years; thus, individuals who are at least 14 years of age can legally engage in sexual activities if the defendant is less than 3 years older than the accuser. In addition, Texas stipulates an exception to their statutory rape laws if the adult and child are legally married during the time of commission of sexual conduct.

I must point out that the state has yet to uncover a single case of statutory rape. They are unable to show that any law has been broken. They rely on rumor, bigotry, and the assumption that all the FLDS are equally guilty. Perhaps there will be a few cases which could better, more cheaply, and with less psychological damage be investigated by observing the few girls between the ages of 14 and 17 in their own environment, with the men removed from the situation. On the other hand, those who have been following recent news reports are aware that

1. Texas CPS is violating the First Amendment by their disregard for the religious practices of the FLDS. Parents have said their children's copies of the Book of Mormon were removed because photographs of Jeffs were taped inside. Caseworkers also have said collections of sermons by Jeffs and other FLDS prophets need review before they are given to the children. There's a slight problem with this line of reasoning. Under the Constitution, parents can teach their children ANYTHING, with no exceptions. Even parents' teaching children to revere a convicted criminal is NOT grounds for terminating parental rights. Jesus was a convicted criminal in the eyes of the law. We don't terminate the parental rights of Christians.


2. Texas CPS was aware of the fraudulent nature of the phone call reporting abuse before entering the YFZ ranch and seizing children and evidence and desecrating their temple; violating the Fourth Amendment..


3. Texas officials have been directed to investigate the possibility of using the assets of the ranch to pay for the costs of the debacle (Fifth Amendment).


4. The Texas court system is punishing innocent parties who have no connection to statutory rape by considering the entire community of over 700 people as one household (Fifth and Sixth Amendments).

There are many, many other problems happening in this case. One wonders what the specific individual charges against each family could be that would keep them from their children until next April; and why issues such as homeschooling, location of residence, educational and vocational training and religious affiliation should be addressed in the plans for their reunification. The families were legally schooling their children, and all were self-supporting. None were found to be on government assistance.

Let us look at but one example. Louisa Barlow Jessop is age 22. She is one of the three girls who were found to be pregnant at the time of the seizure. CPS would not initially accept her legal documentation as proof of her age, but tried to classify her as a minor. She and her husband Dan are not polygamists. They have two children ages 2 and 3; and she gave birth to another on May 12. The couple is subject to the same plans as the other families, meaning the earliest they might hope to regain custody of their children is next April. Judge Thomas Gossett said a "wide loop" had been thrown around the FLDS community that might not fit all parents. If those allegations prove unfounded, "I'll be the first to apologize to you if it turns out you're not a person who has abused your child," the judge told Dan Jessop, who was in the courtroom. "There is no proof of abuse in your case. That gives you a leg up." I'm sure this apology appeases a family who has been separated for over 6 weeks already, and has no hope of being together or back in their home for at least a year. Reading case after case of similar stories breaks my heart.

Because this case is so very similar to the violations perpetrated against the Latter-day Saints in the nineteenth century, I find it incomprehensible that the Mormon Church has done nothing but distance themselves from the case. For a people who considers themselves the defenders of the Constitution, even the very ones who will save it when it is dangling by a thread, I cannot understand this position.

LDS attachment to the Constitution has been encouraged by an important oral tradition deriving from a statement attributed to Joseph Smith, according to which the Constitution would “hang by a thread” and be rescued, if at all, only with the help of the Saints. Church President John Taylor seemed to go further when he prophesied, “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 1, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.)

The Prophet Joseph told us that he saw the day when even the Constitution of the United States would be torn and hang as by a thread. But, thank the Lord, the thread did not break. He saw the day when this people would be a balance of power to come to its defense. (Melvin J. Ballard, Conference Report, October 1928, p. 108)

I have two questions for my readers.

Do you agree that the way this case has been handled weakens the Constitution?

Do you feel that Joseph Smith's prophecy compels us to respond? If not, why? And if so, what can we do as an institution and/or individuals?

Adultescence and my Continuing Obsession With the FLDS

They've become so common that new terms for them have been coined in many languages throughout the "civilized" world: Meet the Twixters, Kippers, Nesthockers, Mammones, and Freeters...or, in other words, "kid-ults," what social scientists have identified as a new and modern stage of life development: extended adolescence. These 18 to 29-year-olds put off adulthood by living in their parents' homes, moving from job to job and enjoying their discretionary income with new cars, computers, game devices, clothes, movies, and eating out. The phenomenon has become so widespread that it is beginning to be addressed by some of the religious denominations, including our own. (See this, by Dallin Oaks.)

We may shake our heads at the most egregious examples of these freeloaders, but little do we realize how much this system of thought has shaped our modern culture. A little over 100 years ago, my mother's great-aunt was living on a farm near Canton, Ohio. A widower with many children who was a friend of the family proposed marriage to this girl who was still a teenager herself. She and her family embraced the opportunity for her to marry this much older man and take over the womanly responsibilities of the family. Today I look at this situation with shock. I have 5 daughters in the age range of 17 to 23. I want them to have the opportunities of travel, missions, educations, jobs, living alone; all before they settle down and have a family. But why do I see this paradigm as preferable to early marriage and responsibility?

My oldest daughter attended two years of college, had a succession of well-paying jobs, went on a trip to Europe, owned a brand-new black Toyota Spyder, briefly lived in a posh apartment complex, served a mission, and is now back at the University, all the while drawing liberally from the parental coffers. One could see this as a horrifying example of self-indulgence, or as contributing to the development of a well-rounded personality.

Girls the same age in the FLDS tradition learn domestic and teaching skills, marry young, have children early, share a husband, live in an insular society, practice submission and cooperative living. One could see this as a horrifying example of subjugation and male domination, or as contributing positively to the strengthening of community and a religious tradition.

As I read Americans' reactions to the continuing story of the Texas polygamists, I see an overwhelming consensus that this group is "abusing" their young teenaged daughters by "indoctrinating" them that marriage at a young age is acceptable. I don't see anyone arguing that theirs is a viable alternative option, even those who feel their civil rights have been violated. But what makes us so sure that our modern perspective is more morally acceptable? Human culture and society has functioned for ages without our arbitrary assignation of an acceptable age of marriage.

This isn't an easy issue. What made the age of 14 acceptable in Texas for marriage with parental consent before the arrival of the FLDS? What makes the age of 16 acceptable now? Why is a particular group who allegedly violated this law being singled out, while other groups are not? Are some girls more mature and better able to make an informed choice at this age than others? Should the law reflect this? What effects have our modern tendency to postpone marriage had on society and the family?

I believe I will retain my personal opinion that girls and women should be free to continue their development well past their adolescence and to choose for themselves when they are ready for the added responsibilities of marriage and family. (Thank you very much!) What's more, I'll teach this to my children. And my students. I guess I'll take the chance that in a few years I might be matriarch over a household of adultescents. However, I just don't agree with our compulsion to enforce our philosophy on such an issue upon others. Especially when their community has proven itself quite stable without our interference.

Dialogue on Polygamy

It's quite an interesting synchronicity that both of the articles on Mormon polygamy which appear in this quarter's Dialogue journal were prepared in advance of the events which took place among the FLDS in Texas. Thus, they do not specifically address the event, but they do join and contribute to an important dialogue about polygamy and Mormonism.

Ken Driggs is a lawyer who did a graduate degree in legal history at the University of Wisconsin Law School. His thesis discussed the legal rights of the FLDS at Short Creek in 1953. A portion of this thesis appeared in the Utah Historical Quarterly as "Who Shall Raise the Children? Vera Black and the Rights of Polygamous Utah Parents." Earlier this week a blog post appeared telling the tragic story of Vera Black's son Wilford. The boy was placed in custody at the age of 6, suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome, stopped communicating with others, and was unable to live a normal life thereafter.

Ken's article, "A New Future Requires A New Past," discusses the recrafting of Mormon history by the mainstream Church, deemphasizing teachings such as polygamy, the "One Mighty and Strong," Mother in Heaven, Jesus' possible earthly marriage, and the United Order. I have discussed some of these subjects in my own blogging. I share with Ken a feeling of disorientation as the Church jettisons many of these beliefs but I recognize that modern-day Mormonism is easier for mainstream Christians to embrace as they enter the Church. Though Ken presents his views from a faithful perspective, he concludes his piece with a hearty, "And don't tell me the Church is never changing."

A second article, "Polygamy, Mormonism, and Me," was written by Carmon Hardy, an LDS historian who has written extensively on the topic of post-Manifest polygamy. His recent book, Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy, Its Origin, Practice and Demise came out in 2007 as part of the Kingdom in the West project spearheaded by Will Bagley. This piece was a bit more disappointing to me than the first. It is billed as part of a series "Avenues to Faith," which "looks at how historians, creative writers, administrators, educators and scriptural scholars have dealt with some of the classic problems in Mormon history." Thus I was expecting and hoping for some reasoned musings on how to fit our polygamous origins into a faithful Mormon paradigm. Instead, page after page of this article presented the classic story of an intellectual's exit from Mormonism. Though Carmon protests (too much!) that polygamy in itself did not threaten his religious convictions, the story is all too typical: LDS member encounters dissonance--loses faith when his prayers and questions are not answered--has a bad experience at Church archives--is interviewed by Church leaders (in his case by his BYU employers) and asked to explain his research--is asked not to pursue his research--leaves BYU and later the Church.

So Carmon provides little in the way of integration of polygamy as practiced in the early Church into present-day LDS thought. But he does, in the latter half of his essay, identify some of the problems we face. Many LDS members are not aware of the strong arguments for plurality which were presented to early members and the world at large. Men and women were told they would be stronger, healthier, and begin to live as long as the ancients through practices associated with plural marriage. They were told their exaltation depended upon the practice. Eugenic superiority, social gifts, and greater happiness were promised, and women were told they could thereby escape the curse of Eve. After the Manifesto, 20 years of equivocation by Church authorities is documented by Carmon Hardy's investigations. His research uncovered at least 200 and possibly up to 300 post-Manifest marriages between 1890 and 1910. These marriages can be shown to be approved by the upper eschelon of Church leadership and contracted among the most faithful of Church members. But once the Church began to move away from the practice of polygamy, the emphatic way that this was done is quite amazing. Unfortunately this included mistruth in public discourse--what Hardy terms "lying for the Lord."

The only glimpse the reader is given into Carmon Hardy's personal evaluation of this information is buried in a footnote: "though my dominant historical interest remains with those many-wived, patriarchal stalwarts of the old Church, I have found today's polygamist dissenters not only welcoming but as gentle and sincere a people on the whole as their nineteenth-century predecessors."

Once again, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought has provided timely material of interest to all within the Latter-day umbrella. The journal was mailed early this week and should be arriving in mailboxes even as you read this review. I was pleased this quarter to see the online version posted along with the mailing, making my online subscription convenient and accessible. Enjoy a peek at this issue by clicking the link on my sidebar.

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.

Searching for Sarah

Texas authorities have been stymied by their inability to find the elusive "Sarah," an alleged 16-year-old girl whose phone call initiated the FLDS fiasco. In an effort to find Sarah, girls from the ranch were physically and verbally examined. A witness described how one of the girl with a name similar to that of the girl in the search warrant was grilled for hours by investigators. "You are this girl," they insisted. "Why don't you want our help?" Refusing to accept her self-identification, and demanding compliance, they subjected the girl to the same treatment that opponents of the FLDS object to.

Followers of this case are aware that there is reason to suspect that the call came from an outsider, and that the young abused girl does not exist. Marleigh Meisner, spokeswoman with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, is scrambling to justify the raid and essentially the kidnapping of more than 400 FLDS children on the strength of this one phone call.

Meisner has now described Sarah as a metaphor.
"I do believe that Sarah exists," she says. "If you listen to the testimony, there were many Sarahs. We received information there were young Sarahs who were pregnant, Sarahs who were mothers. Just because perhaps someone else phoned that in really doesn't change the investigation."

If we are to consider Sarah a symbol of pregnant young girls, let us take a look at some statistics which Mark IV provided at the Messenger and Advocate:

Some background of teenage pregnancies in Texas:

The non-Hispanic white rate is 60 per 1,000, the black rate is 130 per 1,000 and the Hispanic rate is 145 per 1,000.

The rate at YFZ seems to be 45 per 1,000, 20 percent lower than the rate for other Texas girls in the polygamous girls’ demographic cohort and more than 60 percent lower than among Hispanic girls in Texas.

That seems to indicate that underage girls at YFZ are 20 percent less likely to have sex than other white girls across the state and 60 percent less likely to have sex than Hispanic girls across the state.

Further, the rate of teen pregnancy at YFZ is lower than the rate of teen pregnancy in more than three-quarters of Texas counties.

The best thing the state can do now is apologize. If they are sincere in wanting to protect teenaged women from getting pregnant, they ought to take lessons from YFZ, because they are doing a better job of it that the state as a whole.

Yes, Texas, there is a "Sarah."
She walks the halls of your local high school. She goes to the Baptist services. She grew up in the Texas foster-care system. Yes, we all need to search for Sarah, wherever she may be found. If there are girls who need and want our help on the YFZ compound, we should be there to help them. But let us not force our attentions upon those who have a better track record for caring for their own than the rest of the state.

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?

SS Permutations on the Letters of John

OOOOOOHHHH, just wait until you hear what was discussed in SS today under the auspices of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John! Bro. SS Teacher went from expounding on the topic that "God is Love" to telling us that women are naturally more spiritual than men, one of those Mormon throwaway statements that annoys me greatly. I was sitting in the second row, which you Mormons know really means the first row, and I said, just loud enough for him to hear, "Could you repeat what you just said???" in an incredulous tone. So he further expounded, "Yes, women are more spiritual than men, that is why men have the priesthood." And I couldn't let that pass, so I replied, this time loud enough for everyone in the room to hear, "You have absolutely no scriptural support for that opinion." And, dear readers, he TOOK ME ON with chin raised high as he spouted more extreme speculation: "Of course they are more spiritual than men, otherwise why would we have polygamy if not for the condition that will exist in heaven of more righteous women than men?"

And the whole room erupted in buzzing private conversations.

Bro. SS Teacher went on for quite a while in this vein, saying that he had come to this conclusion after "working backward from the scriptures." Meanwhile, I was accosted from behind by a woman who was visiting in the ward. She was anxious to tell me her story about when she was single and had many struggles with immorality. She went to her Bishop to discuss the unfairness of having to remain chaste for eternity and her equal horror of solving the problem by becoming the plural wife of some hypothetical man. The Bishop calmed her fears by telling her of the many male babies who died in infancy, thus evening the male/female ratio in heaven. (Heard that before, folks?) Not understanding my objection to the SS Teacher's comments, she mistakenly felt she had put to rest my anxieties.

I am reminded of the reason why I rarely challenge ignorant statements made in Church meetings. I find that 90% of the time, the members of the class are unable to understand what my objection is. But, lucky me--now I have my blog to spout off on.

Those of you who know me well have discovered that polygamy is not one of the doctrines which troubles me. Rather, my issues lie with this "Mormonism" that priesthood is given to men to compensate for their alleged lack of spirituality compared to women. In the next few days, I'll be looking for the answers to these questions. Help me out, readers, if you will:

1. Is there any doctrinal support for this notion, i.e. Conference Talks, or authoritative statements from Mormon leaders? (I'm already pretty sure you can't come to this from scripture, working backward or forward or any other way. But if there are scriptures that can be construed to make this assertion, what are they?)

2. Would a "greater spirituality of women" postulation support bestowal of the priesthood upon men to the exclusion of the entire female population?

3. What arguments have been made against the idea from an LDS point of view (GA statements, Sunstone/Dialogue articles, blog posts)?

4. Is there a succinct reply contesting this type of assertion that one could make in the context of polite company, say a SS/PH/RS lesson?

Coming to Terms With Polygamy--A Response

In this post I respond to Caroline's questions at Exponent2 blog regarding how I have come to terms with polygamy.

I have several different thoughts. First, I believe that the Church continues to practice polygamy today. Because sealings to multiple wives continue to be practiced in the Temple, and because we believe in an afterlife, polygyny is something we must come to terms with as Latter-day Saints.

In the early days of the Church many leaders declared that polygyny was necessary in order to be exalted. However, Melvin J. Ballard refuted this idea in (I think) 1912 when he said that a man sealed to one wife could be exalted. Thus, my thinking is that polygamy is not necessary. (You just have to convince your husband not to be sealed to another wife after you die!) There are many women who are repulsed by the doctrine (how much of this is cultural conditioning we do not know), and imo they will not be forced to live it. Other families have been sealed into the principle. There is no evidence to suggest that these sealings will be dissolved. My opinion is that they will continue in the next life. Whether or not we personally contract into a polygamous union, it remains so much a part of our doctrine that I doubt any of us will not be personally affected in some way.

I'm not against polygamy myself. But I've had different experiences than many of you. My parents were involved in polygyny from the time I was age 12. It had nothing to do with Mormonism or religion, it was a lifestyle choice. I did not agree with my parents' choice to bring another wife into the family. The choice had many negative repercussions regarding the four children's relationships with our mom and dad. Nonetheless, I saw that it was a viable lifestyle. There was little, if any jealousy. The three adults usually acted as a cohesive unit (much to our dismay as children!) Living closely as a family made it impossible to hide any problems or tensions. I must admit that they were very few and usually solved with patience, tolerance, and love. Both women lived in our home and had separate bedrooms. (I have No Idea what the sexual arrangements were--and I don't want to think about it! Please! They're my parents!) Both women were employed full-time (the youngest child was already school age). Both women had feminist inclinations. Both women as well as my dad shared household responsibilities. All three were very happy with the arrangements, and seemed close and emotionally connected. Thus my personal experience has convinced me that polygyny is a lifestyle that can be lived in love and satisfaction for all parties.

In addition, I have always had very close female relationships. Always. Until I came to Vernal I always had female friends I could rely on emotionally. A woman will listen to you hash the same experience out umpteen million times. A man will (usually) listen to it once. Then he will want you to solve it or get over it. (Yes, I know I'm generalizing a bit!) But there are many reasons that I find a woman to be better "best friend" material than a man.

I can imagine retaining my feminist sensibilities in a polygynist relationship. In fact, I can picture myself in a coterie of chattering females, discussing a book we've read until 3 in the morning, while polygamist hubby waits alone and cold in the upstairs bedroom!

The last point I wish to make is the "obedience" issue. I read two posts at FMH dealing with this issue (See #1 and #2). It interests me that Mormon women who are traditional in every way state that they would rather give up their exaltation than live polygamy. I wonder at statements that if polygamy was reinstated they would "flatly refuse" to obey prophetic counsel. I am often taken to task on this blog for some of the stances I take. Conventional believers would have me adhere more closely to prophetic counsel. Yet it seems acceptable, on the blogs and in wards in which I've lived, to rebel against this one principle.

As I wrote this post, I asked my husband if he would ever want to live polygamy, and he was emphatically negative. He doesn't feel up to dealing with multiple females. I guess most of that is my fault! I think he finds me emotionally taxing. So perhaps I will never have to face this issue head on. I'm not like my parents; I don't believe polygamy is something to be entered into without the specific instructions of the living Prophet of God. But I like to think that if "The Principle" was required of us once again, I would see it as a fascinating and fulfilling adventure.