FLDS in South Dakota?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _Maksutov »

http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/ne ... 99473.html

"A South Dakota lawmaker is looking for an investigation into the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound southwest of Pringle.
But, his request for a legislative summer study looking into the issue was recently denied."
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_SPG
_Emeritus
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:47 am

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _SPG »

Maksutov wrote:http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/South-Dakota-lawmaker-concerned-about-polygamous-compound-in-his-district-421499473.html

"A South Dakota lawmaker is looking for an investigation into the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound southwest of Pringle.
But, his request for a legislative summer study looking into the issue was recently denied."

What issue?
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _Xenophon »

SPG wrote:
Maksutov wrote:http://www.blackhillsfox.com/content/news/South-Dakota-lawmaker-concerned-about-polygamous-compound-in-his-district-421499473.html

"A South Dakota lawmaker is looking for an investigation into the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound southwest of Pringle.
But, his request for a legislative summer study looking into the issue was recently denied."

What issue?


Other than the fact that the FLDS have a long history of (in no particular order) bigamy, sexual misconduct with minors, committing Food Stamp/Welfare fraud, breaking of child labor laws, abandoning the young men to the wild, etc...

I can't really figure out why South Dakota residents might want to look into the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament ... Day_Saints
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_SuperDell
_Emeritus
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 12:27 am

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _SuperDell »

Maybe they could move in and take over Provo, South Dakota?
Could establish a University - maybe Brigham Young University of South Dakota?
Maybe start a football team at the University and schedule Bo Diddly Tech?
“Those who never retract their opinions love themselves more than they love truth.”
― Joseph Joubert
_SPG
_Emeritus
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:47 am

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _SPG »

Xenophon wrote:Other than the fact that the FLDS have a long history of (in no particular order) bigamy, sexual misconduct with minors, committing Food Stamp/Welfare fraud, breaking of child labor laws, abandoning the young men to the wild, etc...

I can't really figure out why South Dakota residents might want to look into the matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament ... Day_Saints


Because in most cases, when they look into the matter, they trump up charges and blows things out of proportion. Like the Texas raid, based on a hoax call. 500 children (and some adults that social workers wouldn't believe were adults) were ripped away from their families and put through the mill. All said in done, it was found that 5 in 500 showed signs of sexual misconduct. That is 1%. The American average for sexual assault on girls is 1 in 4.
Texas changed their age of consent from 14 to 16 so they could go after the FLDS. How many people in should have been arrested on same laws?

Bigamy? As in multiply sex partners? Seriously? We should shut down universities.

Just kidding. I'm just sick of the hypocrisy. What really happened to the FLDS was people like you, shunning them, threatening them, and driving them deeper and deeper into hiding. That is where the abuses happen. Abuse isn't a product of many moms in the house, its a product of suppression, where mothers and children, or even fathers cannot go to the law for help. That is what UT has created, and now what you would promote in South Dakota.
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _Xenophon »

SPG wrote:Just kidding. I'm just sick of the hypocrisy. What really happened to the FLDS was people like you, shunning them, threatening them, and driving them deeper and deeper into hiding. That is where the abuses happen. Abuse isn't a product of many moms in the house, its a product of suppression, where mothers and children, or even fathers cannot go to the law for help. That is what UT has created, and now what you would promote in South Dakota.


I certainly won't argue with the notion that the government can be overzealous in these cases. Although interference in Texas was warranted, the SWAT team with an armored car was a bit excessive. I also would never suggest that it isn't possible to be raised to be a kind, intelligent, productive member of society just because one is raised in such an environment.

That said, there are a huge number of larger societal impacts that have to be examined when considering whether the behavior should be tolerated. When examining these consequences I think authorities are often right in determining that these kinds of compounds should not be tolerated within their jurisdiction. I also think it unfair to suggest that it is only the government suppressing these victims from receiving help, when often it is the husbands themselves doing the suppressing. And just because people worry about these cases doesn't mean they aren't also focusing on other forms of abuse, by now most have learned to walk and chew gum at the same time. I would also be interested in your source on the age of consent for Texas. It is currently, and has been for a while, 17 with a possible exclusion for those within 3 years of age.

I'm content to let you have the last word in this. That said I will leave you with some thoughts and sources from Rose McDermott. She is considering a leading researcher on polygamy in our modern world and her work was invaluable to Womanstats.

Polygamy masquerades as a benignly alternative marriage form, but it is often based on coercion. If men can take multiple wives, it stands to reason that many men will find none. Polygamy math requires that at least half of young adult men be removed from the marriage market. This is done by discarding boys at puberty, either by physically expelling them from the community or socially ostracizing them. These victims are more likely to turn to crime — or in other cultures, join terror groups or mercenary armies. Meanwhile, the procreation of many sons creates clan networks that undermine the rule of law.


According to the information I have helped to collect in the Womanstats database, women in polygynous communities get married younger, have more children, have higher rates of HIV infection than men, sustain more domestic violence, succumb to more female genital mutilation and sex trafficking, and are more likely to die in childbirth. Their life expectancy is also shorter than that of their monogamous sisters. In addition, their children, both boys and girls, are less likely to receive both primary and secondary education.


http://www.providencejournal.com/articl ... /150829788
http://harvardmagazine.com/2011/03/mult ... dard-lives
https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-problems-with-polygamy

edited for clarity/typo
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_SPG
_Emeritus
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:47 am

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _SPG »

Xenophon wrote:Polygamy masquerades as a benignly alternative marriage form, but it is often based on coercion.

These are types of illusions that I resist. Marriage in general is based on coercion. How people handle it varies from person to person. But marriage in spirit is a type of ownership of each other. Once married, a partner will use the marriage to coerce the other into behaving a certain way. This coercion isn't gender specific. Women will now insist the their husband not talk to other women, take out the trash, put the seat down, etc. So the idea that polygamy is "masquerading" is nonsense.

Xenophon wrote:Although interference in Texas was warranted

Actually, it wasn't warranted. They didn't even have a warrant. They got a hoax phone call from a girl in Colorado, so they raided compound. They in the end arrest 6 men, (in a bust of involved about 800 people). I don't remember all the charged, but one man now doing 20 years was charged for marrying a girl when she was 15. She was 27 at the time of the raid, was mother to 5 kids, and was happily married.[/quote]

Warren Jeffs, much as I hate the man, was on the FBI 10 most wanted for assisting in a underage marriage. How many judges in the country has signed off on a teenage marriage?

Xenophon wrote:I would also be interested in your source on the age of consent for Texas. It is currently, and has been for a while, 17 with a possible exclusion for those within 3 years of age.


I was tracking it back in 2005 when the FLDS were first found moving there. As I understand it, Texas claimed that they allowed the younger age because of older laws, and had never changed it. They changed it went after the FLDS. I never looked up the law myself, but read articles that where about the "issue."

That the government went in there, kidnapped their children, broke up their family, and then auctioned off the property to pay for the $8 million plus bill was about as corrupt as anything I have ever seen. Texas sucks.
_Xenophon
_Emeritus
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:50 pm

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _Xenophon »

I said I would give you the last word and I promise I will as it concerns the "public image" of polygamy. I have to correct a few things in reference to the YFZ Ranch raid though.

First, they absolutely did have a warrant to search the compound. You may argue that since the first warrant was based of a hoax call that it should have been voided, Third District Court of Appeals in Texas disagrees with you (note that a second warrant was obtained upon finding further evidence of abuse at the ranch).

Second, in total 12 men were charged with varying crimes, mostly of a sexual nature.

Third, of the 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who are in state custody, 31 either have given birth or are expecting.

Again, I hate that I am in the position to have defend what I have already concieded was in many ways a government overreach, but lets get the facts straight at least. You and I can at least both 100% agree that the seizure of property was entirely unnecessary and that many innocent people were negatively impacted in order to punish some pretty terrible dudes.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens
_SPG
_Emeritus
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 12:47 am

Re: FLDS in South Dakota?

Post by _SPG »

Xenophon wrote:Again, I hate that I am in the position to have defend what I have already concieded was in many ways a government overreach, but lets get the facts straight at least. You and I can at least both 100% agree that the seizure of property was entirely unnecessary and that many innocent people were negatively impacted in order to punish some pretty terrible dudes.


I followed the event closely. Maybe "facts" were added later. The warrant wasn't obtained until the next day, and then I think another one was obtained when they used a battering ram to get into the temple.

For the most part, facts suck because they based upon what the majority of the population considers a "fact." That people were peacefully living their religion might also be considered a "fact" but probably won't because it doesn't fit the popular opinion. That Texas invaded without validating the call is also a fact. That what happened is essentially the government "processed" an entire community looking for crimes is a fact. If they did that to any other small town in America, they would have found much worse, much more, and America would have freaked out.

I don't need the last word. I just talk until I'm done.

That Warren's followers were off their rockers seemed pretty clear to me. I hated what he did those people. I had talked to a young girl that knew Warren before his father died and told me of what shadow-ops that he had going. I predicted that he would do what he did. There were a couple of factors in why people followed him, but one of the strongest reason he was able to twist them was because of the isolation the government had imposed on the community over the last hundred years. Some saw it coming years before it happened and got out. But Warren was able to push that wedge between the people and the US government to the point that they totally hated and distrusted the government.

The people that tried to be more open with their trust have fared much better, but UT is again trying to push them underground.

Because they are still think that multiple moms somehow implies abuse, they are going to push the culture into the shadows again.
Post Reply