The Book of Mormon debate
One FLDS spokesman said Tuesday he was baffled by Texas officials' move to keep the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants -- standard scriptures also used by the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- from the children.
“We can see why they would take our Bible, as far as it is correctly translated, because it does have plural marriage in it,” said Willie Jessop.
Most FLDS use what is referred to as the ''triple combination'' -- one book that contains all three religious texts.
And therein may lie an interesting problem, one that may highlight how Bible Belt residents feel about Mormons. Doctrine and Convenants also refers to plural marriage.
D&C 132 contains the original revelation Joseph Smith said he received from God authorizing the church to engage in plural marriage to build up the heavenly kingdom. Although the LDS Church revoked the practice in 1890 and re-emphasized the ban in 1904, the revelation remains on the books, so to speak. The declaration against plural marriage is in D&C, too.
But what the Lord saith can not be unsaith, so 132 remains.
Texas authorities say they have removed the books from children because photographs of FLDS leader Warren S. Jeffs, a convicted sex offender, were taped inside them. That is verboten, apparently, even if he happens to be the child's father.
Officials have told parents that they will be happy to supply new editions of the Book of Mormon to replace those taken away. But FLDS only use pre-1978 triple combinations. I am not sure if a stockpile of those is easy to come by.
Here is the problem with books printed after 1978. That is the year then-LDS Church prophet Spencer Kimball received a revelation that blacks who were members of the faith could hold the priesthood, a change now reflected in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Fundamentalist Mormons viewed the policy as a serious break with principles laid down by Smith. Still do.
One caseworker said that supervisors would have to review the religious texts, including collections of sermons used by the FLDS, to see if they are appropriate. Those books include sermons by mainstream LDS Church prophets.
Someone has some heavy reading to do.
The book debate is not the only wrinkle that has surfaced in the hearings here in San Angelo.
Attorney Carl Kolb, who represents Seth Jeffs, said Tuesday his client was told not to mention the name of Warren Jeffs -- his brother and his children's uncle -- during visits. Also a problem: Seth Jeffs' children are being allowed to listen to music, watch television and wear modern clothes, all at odds with the sect's beliefs and contrary to their parents' wishes.
“We can see why they would take our Bible, as far as it is correctly translated, because it does have plural marriage in it,” said Willie Jessop.
Most FLDS use what is referred to as the ''triple combination'' -- one book that contains all three religious texts.
And therein may lie an interesting problem, one that may highlight how Bible Belt residents feel about Mormons. Doctrine and Convenants also refers to plural marriage.
D&C 132 contains the original revelation Joseph Smith said he received from God authorizing the church to engage in plural marriage to build up the heavenly kingdom. Although the LDS Church revoked the practice in 1890 and re-emphasized the ban in 1904, the revelation remains on the books, so to speak. The declaration against plural marriage is in D&C, too.
But what the Lord saith can not be unsaith, so 132 remains.
Texas authorities say they have removed the books from children because photographs of FLDS leader Warren S. Jeffs, a convicted sex offender, were taped inside them. That is verboten, apparently, even if he happens to be the child's father.
Officials have told parents that they will be happy to supply new editions of the Book of Mormon to replace those taken away. But FLDS only use pre-1978 triple combinations. I am not sure if a stockpile of those is easy to come by.
Here is the problem with books printed after 1978. That is the year then-LDS Church prophet Spencer Kimball received a revelation that blacks who were members of the faith could hold the priesthood, a change now reflected in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Fundamentalist Mormons viewed the policy as a serious break with principles laid down by Smith. Still do.
One caseworker said that supervisors would have to review the religious texts, including collections of sermons used by the FLDS, to see if they are appropriate. Those books include sermons by mainstream LDS Church prophets.
Someone has some heavy reading to do.
The book debate is not the only wrinkle that has surfaced in the hearings here in San Angelo.
Attorney Carl Kolb, who represents Seth Jeffs, said Tuesday his client was told not to mention the name of Warren Jeffs -- his brother and his children's uncle -- during visits. Also a problem: Seth Jeffs' children are being allowed to listen to music, watch television and wear modern clothes, all at odds with the sect's beliefs and contrary to their parents' wishes.
17 Comments:
I really want to thank Brooke for sharing the quote from a judge in one of her articles released this morning.
"...Asked by her husband, Dan, why the state had taken his children, Gossett said a "wide loop" had been thrown around the FLDS community that might not fit all parents. The state, he said, had concerns about the FLDS' beliefs, plural and underage marriages and "communal attitude."
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."
That shows the troops are not all happy in the Walthers camp.
No proof of abuse in his case should give him more than a "leg up". It should get him his children back instantly, and the apology mentioned. This is ridiculous. How can Texas justify compelling any of these parents into service plans, forcing them to meet state requirements in order to get their children returned, while acknowledging "no abuse" in several cases already??? And now TX Senators are talking about seizing FLDS assets to foot the bill for this mess. I'm appalled.
We have no problem and wish for you to practice your religion...
well, except for this...
this...
this...
this...
and oh yeah, this.
Okay, carry on.
Let's see they have stripped them of their scripture, stripped them of their religious garb (clothing), stripped them of access to the teaching of their religious leaders ... even forbidden them of uttering the name of their prophet. It looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck!!! How far does CPS have to go before somebody in power is going to step in and protect the religious freedom of these parents and children?
What would the reaction be if the Muslims held in Guantanimo were denied access to the Koran, made to wear western clothing, denied access to anything with Muslim references and told they were not allowed to even utter the name "allah"? The ACLU would have court papers filed before the sun set. There would be protesters camped outside the gates night and day and government officials would be on television demanding an investigation to make sure the rights of these people were not being violated.
Where is the ACLU? Where are the leaders who are sworn to uphold the constitution?
The policy started by the LDS in 1978 was not only reflected in the D&C with the "Official Dedclaration 2" but also in the Book of Mormon as well, changing the wording "white and delightsome" refering to the fiuture of Lamanites (Native Americans).
stripped them of access to the teaching of their religious leaders ... even forbidden them of uttering the name of their prophet.
Their prophet is a convicted accessory to child rape, who has admitted to molesting his sister and daughter and who has been accused of molesting both boys and girls as a school principal. There are no constitutional rights guaranteeing you may rape your child or condition your child to become a sexual predator or victim for others. Giving a child rapist power over your life and your family's does exactly that.
He didn't admit any such thing. He failed to defend himself in court against civil suits alleging molestation. That lack of defense led the state of Utah to seize control of the FLDS trust before lawsuits drained it of assets; the seizure was supposed to be intended to protect members of the FLDS from loss of their homes and assets that were controlled by the trust.
Look, I've heard all the stories about Warren Jeffs and I don't like what I hear, but that does not change the fact that 10 of the children taken in the raid are his children, and they are entitled to speak their father's name, have pictures of him, and know about him ~ he has not had his parental rights severed at this time.
Warren Jeffs is a sex offender by virtue of his conviction as an "accomplice" to rape, which is due to his performing a marriage between a 14 year old and a 19 year old. I don't agree with it. I felt very sorry for Elissa Wall when I read her story. However, I don't accept that Warren Jeffs had the control she claims he had at the time of her marriage. He was not the leader of their church at the time she was married; Rulon Jeffs was the leader. Fred Jessop was her step-father and was apparently both highly influential and respected in the group, and strongly supportive of the marriage of Elissa to Alan Steed. It sounded to me from the testimony in the trial that Elissa's family brought a lot of pressure to bear on her to agree to the marriage. Warren's role came later when she asked him for advice and wanted a release from her husband, and yet, 100% of the responsibility for the marriage/relationship, etc., was laid at Warren's feet, because the other two men are deceased.
But I'm off on a tangent. We can ignore all of that, and for the sake of argument say that Warren is guilty of all that; he was found guilty and convicted. Still, he was not convicted of having sex with an underage girl. He performed a marriage that involved a minor girl. That particular charge apparently doesn't exist in AZ, or if it does, it was not used in this case (likely because it was not retroactive but I would have to look up the law to check for sure), so Jeffs was charged with accessory to commit rape.
Again, it's a matter of blanket decisions being made without taking into account extenuating circumstances, something that is very consistent with how Texas has been approaching the FLDS from the beginning.
Flora: Do you just cut and paste all your comments from other posts that you have left? It is getting altogether quite pathetic to wade through the same vomit that you seem to spew every time you open that trap door of yours! Why don't you get a life? Please!!
Womankine lacks credible source in all her posts.
It's getting to be pointless to refute her theories and claims with facts.
I do not reply to womankine as Flora has an alternate purpose. Her book sales are up and why, because bigots like her are still trying to fuel hatred.
Womankine/Flora, you are showing how flawed a human being you really are. All that hatred is going to burn you up.
What an empty lonely life you will lead.
At this point in time, there is no credibility in CPS charges and the judges without agendas are now realizing it. With hope and courage, these dissenting judges should band together to protect Constitutional Rights.
As for the Texas ACLU, well, this total lack of action has made them look like discredited liberal baptists who have the same bigotry prevailent in the CPS.
I hope the judges realize what has happened and that they do something about it.
http://www.boycott-texas.org/
that does not change the fact that 10 of the children taken in the raid are his children, and they are entitled to speak their father's name, have pictures of him, and know about him ~ he has not had his parental rights severed at this time.
I completely agree with you. And one of the judges ordered that his children should be allowed all of those rights, in this latest round of court hearings.
Can any FLDS members or supporters who post regularly, explain to me why there is no call to at least investigate the Jeffs' admission and allegations of sexual abuse WITHIN THE SECT? Or why you would automatically clear and defend him without an investigation.
This exhibits to the world a blatant lack of concern regarding child sexual abuse.
Hm. Are you talking about the statement he made that he had sinned and was not worthy to be prophet? I'm curious about that, too. Clearly, his members don't accept that. Was there a specific "sin" he confessed to? Did he actually confess to molesting a woman in that statement? I recall he said something about doing something inappropriate but I don't remember what it was. I just don't like making flat out statements about something unless I know it's true. I don't recall Warren Jeffs confessing to molesting anyone, but I'll stand corrected if someone can show me where he said it.
There was a lawsuit against Jeffs by Brent Jeffs for molestation and I have read that his wasn't the only one. There is also a story that Warren's father, Rulon, kicked him out of the sect for a while, because he was caught molesting relatives.
My own opinion, and it is only that, is that a lot of the problems attributed to the sect, itself, may herald back to one lousy leader. It would seem to their benefit show they are willing to do something about it.
UTAH
The Kansas City Star
October 31, 2007
By JENNIFER DOBNER
Associated Press Writer
Sitting in jail awaiting trial, the leader of a polygamous sect renounced his role as a prophet and said he had been "immoral" with a sister and daughter decades ago, newly unsealed documents show.
Warren Jeffs' attorneys included those statements in documents they filed in July as they sought to keep jail recordings out of his September trial in the arranged marriage of a 14-year-old to her 19-year-old cousin.
Fifth District Judge James Shumate agreed that the recordings could bias jurors against Jeffs and ordered the documents sealed. He unsealed them Tuesday. ...
The Catholic Church was accused of being slow to recognize, or wilfully blind to, allegations of widespread sexual abuse of children by priests. Noone took the children of parishioners who did not prevent those now-established abuses, or dare to exalt that church, or even those fallen priests, or church leadership of that period.
Sodomy is involved in some child sex abuse, but we don't take all children from those who practice sodomy (also once illegal in Texas by a statute that was held unconsitutional by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, 2005).
Some men who are adulterers abuse a child. We don't take children from the wife or family of men who commit adultery. We don’t even take them from those few families in our community where adulterous men father and support second families outside their marriage, simply because those women love, lift up, or refuse to disgrace their husband.
Guns don't kill people, but some use guns to kill others. We don't take the children from the advocates of the second amendment.
Plural marriage, the belief or the practice, is incapable of causing child abuse. But since some FLDS members apparently married and fathered children by child-aged mothers, we take every FLDS child from their mothers and fathers, including those of the vast majority that did no such thing. .
A tiny percentage of FLDS members presumably abused a child, and shall be dealt with--like the sex offender in your own community and church.
The Patriarch Abraham lived in plural marriage (e.g., Genesis, 25:1). Those who exalt his beliefs, wisdom, life, marriages, and offspring are now persecuted.
The State has unconstitutionally intruded–again–into an area of life and privacy that the US Supreme Court clearly says is off limits to the State. Marriage and family choices, including those lived by Abraham and the FLDS, may not be restricted by the State. Taking FLDS children of parents whom CPS admits are not guilty of either abuse or neglect, of their children or any other, can only be based on the bigamy argument.
Since we can’t constitutionally criminalize plural marriage (by the way, do we even consider how the practice originated, flourished worldwide and continues to be legal and widespread based on religious traditions in some 850 nations in the world, but came to be a crime in Texas?), we are left to explain our actions upon grounds that amount to simple bigotry and religious intolerance.
And we are criminalizing a Biblical tradition. So which tradition is next? Which community that does not engage in witch-hunts for sex offenders or might-be abusers is next?
We (our state and its officials) have gone much too far. The State must redress this most severe insult to the families that have abused or neglected no child but were separated by the awesome power of the State merely because of the politically correct majority’s moral outrage over their practices. They are practices we have no right to criminalize.
The real crime is the attack on the vast majority of the loving families who have been unconstitutionally broken by the State, because of their beliefs that harmed noone.
May 22, 2008
Moreover, there is no need to criminalize plural marriage, because it is not the cause of any abuse or neglect of any child.
Carl J. Kolb
San Antonio, Texas
Carl Kolb:
Thank you for renewing hope that there are some rational thinking people in Texas. I was about to give up!
Post a Comment
<< Home