RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, April 19 - 4:38pm

Link

Edit

TSI wrote: "... females living at that place are brought up to be submissive from the time of birth. These girls and their mothers, literally, have no mind of their own. ... Individuals who have escaped from these very conditions have made themselves available to the state to testify..."

By "individuals" I assume TSI means Carolyn Jessup
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1675126,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
or perhaps Flora Jessups
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/16/polygamy.escapes/index.html#cnnSTCText

Flora Jessups ran away as a teenager. So, obviously, she was not thoroughly brainwashed. Carolyn Jessup also decided that enough was enough and left; she, too, displayed a mind of her own. By her story in Time, she never lost it. She was just in a bad place in a bad time.

But who was not?

Here on this website, people (guys) have said good things about the physical abuse they suffered as children. They said that it taught them right from wrong.

People here on RoR have "escaped" from religious homes, liberal homes, etc. Both of my wives (not at the same time) were raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, etc., and both were pretty much intellectually on their own when I met them. People have come to the USA after living their whole lives under Soviet communism or in China. The case of Roland G. Fryer closes Freakonomics.

On the other hand, there are people who choose other lives. Last weekend was the annual "Hash Bash" here in Ann Arbor. There were people in safron robes playing musical instruments and chanting. Speaking of that, tomorow, Tenzin Gyatso will be here. I have to work, unfortunately, or I would be there to protest. (How about these protest signs: REALITY IS EXACTLY WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE ... ENJOY LIFE: BUY STUFF... LIFE IS GOOD ...) Anyway, the point is that these Buddhists have clearly chosen in midst of all this reality and reason and material prosperity to pursue some other path. Do they have that right?

Do they have the right to teach their children Buddhism? ... or Catholicism ...

If you want to liberate women who are oppressed, think about Orthodox Jews. (See, for instance: K.M.Loewenthal & V.Goldblatt: "Family size and depressive symptoms in orthodox Jewish women." Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1993, 27,3-10.) These women are brainwashed into believing that they are part of a 5,000 year tradition handed down by God that orders them to obey men and have lots of babies. And this so-called "5,000 year tradition" is actually younger than Christianity!

And speaking of those guys, you know, here in SE Michigan, we have large Middle Eastern communities and a few Catholic communities as well and it is pretty interesting to nuns and Muslim women side by side because they are dressed alike... and hold a lot of common assumptions about their place in the universe...

I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that most of the people here on RoR went to public schools. We were taught socialism. How did we "escape"?

If you would consider FLDS women to be "brainwashed," where do you draw the line? Does anyone feel a need to rescue Kira Peikoff?

Post 1

Saturday, April 19 - 7:05pm

Link

Edit

Carolyn Jessup

She was not from this particular Texas establishment.

or perhaps Flora Jessups

Nor was she.

As a matter of fact, it's a couple of young fellas who have stepped forward, not women.

This particular strong hold of Mormon "tradition" was started by convicted child rapist Warren Jeffs, and was reserved, by him, to be a sanctuary for his most loyal, and faithful followers. There won't be many, if any, women escaping from there. None of them have a mind left to save, except, maybe, those of the children who were rescued.

Anyway, the point is that these Buddhists have clearly chosen in midst of all this reality and reason and material prosperity to pursue some other path. Do they have that right?

I don't know for sure, but chances are pretty damn good that those dudes grew up with cartoons, comic books, TV, radio, malls, record players, McDonalds, public school, friends from all religious backgrounds, sports teams, boy scouts, movies, a variety of girlfriends, condoms, pot and a whole fucking slew of other potential value makers you just don't get in a cloistered "community," where controlling the mind has got to be much much much easier. Those orange clad dudes were just looking for an opportunity to give up. That's what nihilists value, so the Krishna gave it to them. They had their chance, and chose to blow it anyway.

Those children in Texas never had a chance, until now. It's difficult to make choices when alternatives are hidden from you. Unless, Michael, you think alternatives come to the mind in a package other than sensory perception.

Post 2

Saturday, May 24 - 3:19pm

Link

Edit

HA! TSI HA! I say...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/no-justification-for-raid-on-texas-mormon-ranch-833590.html

The other thing that bothers me about this whole insanity, besides the complete trampelling of every sort of civil right on the part of the state, is the unbelievable hypocrisy involved.

1. The age of consent for marriage in Texas was reportedly only recently changed from 14 to 16. Like George Carlin's take on the Catholic Friday Meat Eaters, and what happened to those who were in purgatory or even HELL, when the church changed its mind and declared it OK, suddenly, on a the flip of a legal switch, people who were fine and legal suddenly become montrous CRIMINALS who don't even deserve basic civil rights.

2. In spite of the law, in Texas as in California, I would virtually guarantee you that fem Hispanics who marry at 14, as is quite common in Mexico, are given a blind eye by the legal system. Just a thought: Does that mean that it's ok if I marry a 14 yr. old Mexican? What if she has one Anglo parent and one Mexican? What percentage of Mexican "blood" makes it ok to marry her? Oh, and what about MY age? According to the last piece I saw on this in the OC Register, I believe that the authorities also looked at the relative ages of the couple in making their ad hoc determination. So, likely I would be another MONSTROUS CRIMINAL, whereas if I had been smart enough to do the deed 30 years ago, I would be an UPSTANDING CITIZEN.

This is utter insanity. Age should not even be a factor in marriage or sex, legally. If both parties have the character, intelligence and experience to make an informed decision - which is clearly not the case in many marriages of whatever age, given the divorce rates - then it is nobody's business but theirs and the friends and relatives who have a stake in them personally. In fact, if we went by that standard, then most people would probably have to wait until they were 30 to marry, but there would always be the ones on the far end of the bell curve who would be perfectly capable of such a choice at age 12.

If there were objective grounds to believe that people in the Texas compound were being systematically manipulated by being coercively isolated from any outside sources of information or that people were being coerced into any kind of relationship, then there should have been a warrant, an investigation, and, given the scope of the accusations and the potential peril to civil rights by abuse of power, some kind of professional assessment of what would be reasonably required to correct the real issues, with the opportunity for all sides to be heard.

Post 3

Saturday, May 24 - 6:15pm

Link

Edit

Mary Fualaau?

A minimum assumed age of consent does seem to make sense. There should be some way to override such a barrier if the parties can show enough maturity. Doing that sounds unlikely in a polygamist compound. What judge is going to rule that a young girl isn't being coerced, and then get thrown off the bench when something goes wrong? Of course, this woman went to jail for quite some time for her actions. Given her current married name, it seems that perhaps the law did not know best.

Post 4

Sunday, May 25 - 7:40am

Link

Edit

Yes, Phil, yes.

Your joy is a little sick to me, but, whatever.

I have a sense that this ain't over yet.

Post 5

Sunday, May 25 - 4:04pm

Link

Edit

It's ok, TSI. I can't, in good conscience, as an objectivist, forgive you, of course. But if you hadn't stepped in with both feet, then I wouldn't be able to use you as a foil, either. It would be like Francisco at the party, with nobody asking him silly leading questions. Thus, I encourage your further participation. ;->

Thanks, Ted. It's interesting, in the light of the very recent Supreme Court decision -

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/20scotus.html?ref=us

- how the "idea" is now the target. Nothing new under the sun, however. One of my fave inspirational pieces is Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own, http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html, in which Stirner discusses the various levels of mental evolution that both individuals and civilizations undergo. The ancients had little power over physical reality, were at the mercy of flood and plague and wild animals, so they made these forces into Gods and put them outside human power and choice. The Christians moved to the next level - civilization by then having shown itself capable of dealing with the natural world - to the realm of ideas, of "the spirit." Stirner attempted to move to a further level, saying that WE are the master of our ideas, and that a religious attitude toward them simply locks us into fallacy.

Of course most people are still at the level of treating ideas as sacred objects. A person who has wrong ideas is BAD, and, since we are a person, then, by inference, we ourselves are BAD if we have a wrong idea, and challenging our own ideas is then inevitably experienced as threatening, right?

So, even if we're talking about computer generated or modified images that never at all involved actual children, it's the thought that counts. We punish the person who has a BAD thought.

Post 6

Monday, May 26 - 12:26am

Link

Edit

"Those children in Texas never had a chance, until now. It's difficult to make choices when alternatives are hidden from you. Unless, Michael, you think alternatives come to the mind in a package other than sensory perception."

Yes, by all means, let's have the state of Texas step in and take away hundreds of children of inner-city parents based on false allegations about someone else who lives in the neighborhood.

And from non-FLDS mainstream Mormons, and home-schooled kids, and pretty much any other parent teaching their kids values different from yours.

Oh, wait, you only mean to apply these extreme civil rights violations to parents of a particular persecuted religious minority whose beliefs you don't agree with.

Oh, that's OK, then. Carry on.

Post 7

Monday, May 26 - 5:30am

Link

Edit

They still don't have a chance, Jim. Now less than ever.

Instead of piling on me, why not just say what you really mean: Rights trump Truth.

Rights don't make the truth, and neither do judges.

If you morons can't see the harm in this, there's nothing I can say.

And from non-FLDS mainstream Mormons, and home-schooled kids, and pretty much any other parent teaching their kids values different from yours.

Oh, I forgot. Jim was a member of this cult. Now he's a member of the Franz Boaz School of Relativism.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/26, 5:39am)

Post 8

Monday, May 26 - 7:40am

Link

Edit

TSI firmly pronounced moral judgment when she expounded:

Instead of piling on me, why not just say what you really mean: Rights trump Truth.

Rights don't make the truth, and neither do judges.

If you morons can't see the harm in this, there's nothing I can say.

Without understanding fully your own well-reasoned views on the boundaries between the authority rights of parents and those of the state, I have a hard time defending your view against that of Jim Henshaw, whose Post 6 in this thread I sanctioned.

In Objectivist politics, in fact, rights do indeed trump truth.

Ayn Rand herself said the government should stay out of the business of dictating ideas parents teach their children. This leads by implication to the phenomenon of parents who engage in the heavy-handed BITE formula of mind control via control of Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion. You and I may find it morally despicable, but as long as the children receive basics of food, clothing, shelter, etc., I have a hard time invoking a "rights violation" argument in favor of government child snatching.

Please do not take any of this as a sanction on my part of adults raping minors as I made no mention of that and do not consider that germane to the central question of whether children in heavy-handed but safe homes have "a chance" at a full life of reason upon reaching the legal age of adulthood.

I have considered writing an article called something like "A Childfree Objectivist Examines Parenting" but have had absolutely no time and, besides, who would take me seriously?

Post 9

Monday, May 26 - 11:15am

Link

Edit

In Objectivist politics, in fact, rights do indeed trump truth.

Indeed. Truth is the actual. Rights are a construct. Interesting. If rights don't conform to truth, well, tough shit.

Ayn Rand herself said the government should stay out of the business of dictating ideas parents teach their children.

Sure. Beat the ideas into them. Perfectly fine. Excuse me while I vent some frustration over the excuse making.

Rand said a whole bunch of stuff. My favorite lecture of hers is "Our Cultural Value Deprivation." If this outfit isn't the epitome of a sensory deprivation chamber, nothing is.

I'm glad the state tried to find something wrong with the intellectual neglect practiced as a primary principle of child rearing by these inbreds. It gives me hope.

You and I may find it morally despicable, but as long as the children receive basics of food, clothing, shelter, etc., I have a hard time invoking a "rights violation" argument in favor of government child snatching.

Yeah, I have no idea why I argued so hard for the freedom of Elian Gonzalez to stay in the U.S. some years ago. Surely he's being fed and cared for by his sperm donor in Cuba That's all that matters.

Defense of these people will result in ridicule. That is my only recourse.

There are no victories in this ruling. Only a human hating cynic could think there were.

There is no dichotomy between the mind and the body. Neglect one, and the other will suffer.

Post 10

Monday, May 26 - 11:19am

Link

Edit

While I can appreciate TSI's outrage, I feel frustrated that she still has not calmly stated a well-reasoned body of political principles showing exactly where to draw the line in state protection of non-adults from their caretakers.

As for the Cuba example, Gonzalez would not have the option of freely leaving the Cuba compound upon reaching adulthood, so I do not consider that a valid equivalent.

One could argue that since Objectivism does not comply with "the majority" viewpoint, the state should snatch homeschooled Objectivist children from their parents so they can receive "the truth" according to "peer-reviewed" state standards.

Is this what TSI wants?

Does "the state" have a monopoly on "the truth" such that parents can never be right and the state can never be wrong?

I really think TSI owes us a full article on the subject rather than continue her piecemeal attacks.

I want to emphasize, once again, that I find the false ideas promulgated in the FLDS compound morally despicable but the interference of the state politically questionable.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/26, 12:02pm)

Post 11

Monday, May 26 - 3:06pm

Link

Edit

Of what debt do I owe you or anyone here anything, Luke? You've already said that you don't consider some obvious facts of the case relevant, that of brainwashing child brides into a life as brood mares, so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing I could say that would pay you in any way meaningful. I can't give you what I don't have.

While I can appreciate TSI's outrage, I feel frustrated that she still has not calmly stated a well-reasoned body of political principles showing exactly where to draw the line in state protection of non-adults from their caretakers.

If this is a test case of how far rights can go, it passed with flying colors. You should be elated. These parents are free to turn out more brick walls against reason. Well done. It's open season for intellectual neglect.

As for the Cuba example, Gonzalez would not have the option of freely leaving the Cuba compound upon reaching adulthood, so I do not consider that a valid equivalent.

How "free" is an isolated, brainwashed, manmade robot? Without the knowledge of alternatives, it's impossible to act differently. Only the intrinsical or a Kantian would say that knowledge of alternatives would come to mind somehow, but that flies in the face of Objectivist theories.

One could argue that since Objectivism does not comply with "the majority" viewpoint, the state should snatch homeschooled Objectivist children from their parents so they can receive "the truth" according to "peer-reviewed" state standards.

I understand that the state haters would think this way, but this is overtly relativist thinking. Why did the state return THOSE children, but refuse to return the children of parents attempting to sell them for sexual favors? Or return the children of parents who kept them locked in cages for years? If parents are always right, and the state is always wrong, at least be consistent with the view.  The state should never interfere, even when parents are attempting to sell their children to strangers for sexual favors with them,
Or parents who keep their kids locked in cages for years, and then use them for selective breeding with others.

Whats the diff? As long as their fed, clothed, housed, why should the state care, right? We have to be respecting and tolerant of cultural differences.

Even the Amish allow their teenage offspring to explore the world and decide for themselves if they want to live the Amish way or not.

Does "the state" have a monopoly on "the truth" such that parents can never be right and the state can never be wrong?

Who's talking about "never?" Don't introduce straw men, Luke. You're smarter than that. In terms of distinguishing a crime from a non-crime, yes, the state does have that monopoly. Are these parents "right?" Why or why not? Again, whats the difference between this lifestyle and that of caging the children from the world, and then introducing them to selective breeding?

I'm going to try and draw a line for you, one distinguishing the rights of parents from the state and those of children from the bullshit of their parents:

How far can parents go to screw up their kids? That's the line. All political conclusions must come from the answer to that question.

Post 12

Monday, May 26 - 3:58pm

Link

Edit

Teresa, you're (partially) right, I was an active, Temple Recommend holding member of the mainstream LDS Church. (Not the FLDS, who are a much more extreme bunch.) I walked away from the Church in January, much as I walked away from the fundy Protestantism my mother was trying to enmesh me in, back when I was 13 or so. I had a really tense showdown with my mother over that, with her demanding that I go to church, and making threats, while I calmly said I didn't believe in what they were teaching and I wasn't going back. I prevailed, and obtained an uneasy truce over that.

I chose to walk away from the Church. The members of the FLDS can too. If someone there tries to physically compel them to stay, then they are in violation of the law and should be prosecuted and tossed in jail. I agree it would be very hard for someone there to leave, especially since they are isolated from the outside world, but not impossible. A careful reading of the Mormon scriptures (and I have read the Mormon scriptures, including the Bible, cover to cover) turns up all sorts of improbable notions that a logical person would notice and gradually become more and more uneasy with.

I can understand your disdain for the lifestyle the members of this Church face. But, if we do not uphold the rule of law for even the most despicable people you can imagine, your freedom vanishes too. And the civil rights of the FLDS have been trampled on immensely. If any of the FLDS have broken the law, and that can be proven in a court of law, then they should be held accountable, but so far it appears that Texas law enforcement has come up with no legal proof of any wrongdoing.

And, this may come as a huge surprise to you, Teresa -- some of the happiest, kindest, most likeable people I know are LDS. They may be totally delusional, but it is a nice, comfy delusional, and it almost always results in them treating others with great courtesy (except for when they go into the voting booth). I have no doubt that many FLDS members are similarly happy in their beliefs, because they aren't all that different from the mainstream LDS.

Do you really want to destroy the protection of the rule of law, and allow the tyrannical rule of lawless men and women who have no legal boundaries to their action, in order to impose your version of rationality upon people who may be blissfully happy with their delusions?

Seriously?

(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 5/26, 4:03pm)

Post 13

Monday, May 26 - 4:06pm

Link

Edit

Evidently I missed the thread where TSI wrote what MEM quotes in Post 0 of this thread.

So perhaps I have missed some of TSI's arguments somewhere in another thread I neglected to read.

That conceded, along with my own occasional propensity for vehement posts, TSI's hysterics remain unhelpful.

She did at least post this:

I'm going to try and draw a line for you, one distinguishing the rights of parents from the state and those of children from the bullshit of their parents:

How far can parents go to screw up their kids? That's the line. All political conclusions must come from the answer to that question.

Given the current condition of courts and psychological testimony, this "standard" needs much more bone structure and flesh to become viable.

The very term "screw up" needs objective grounding and full definition.

I have had these types of arguments in the past in which some argued in favor of letting impulsive horny teenagers have their way to the possible detriment of themselves and, more importantly, their parents, who must pay the price to clean the ensuing mess or face the wrath of the state.

Even if you outlawed teenage sex and marriage altogether and raised the legal age of consent and marriage to 21 everywhere regardless of context, you still have not adequately answered the more fundamental questions of how much legal authority a parent can have over a child and exactly what constitutes "screwing up" a child versus state child care "screwing up" a child.

Of what debt do I owe you or anyone here anything, Luke? You've already said that you don't consider some obvious facts of the case relevant, that of brainwashing child brides into a life as brood mares, so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing I could say that would pay you in any way meaningful. I can't give you what I don't have.

Fine. I will not take you seriously, then. I will take my own time and make up my own mind about this in a slow, calm, plodding, non-hysterical fashion.

Ultimately, this is not my problem, anyway.

But it is an interesting subject.

P.S. I also sanctioned Jim Henshaw's Post 12 of this thread.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/26, 4:12pm)

Post 14

Monday, May 26 - 5:22pm

Link

Edit

Then you can't answer my questions, Luke? Like this one:

How "free" is an isolated, brainwashed, manmade robot? Without the knowledge of alternatives, it's impossible to act differently. Only the intrinsical or a Kantian would say that knowledge of alternatives would come to mind somehow, but that flies in the face of Objectivist theories.

Didn't you know that parents can create something similar to retardation with intellectual neglect? I thought that was common knowledge. How do you "know" things? I think it's by (at the very least) first being exposed to them.

And particularly this one:

Why did the state return THOSE children, but refuse to return the children of parents attempting to sell them for sexual favors? Or return the children of parents who kept them locked in cages for years? If parents are always right, and the state is always wrong, at least be consistent with the view. The state should never interfere, even when parents are attempting to sell their children to strangers for sexual favors with them,
Or parents who keep their kids locked in cages for years, and then use them for selective breeding with others.

So, keeping kids in cages is okay with you? I'm sorry I didn't write this in a more palatable way, but I lack the skill. I thought I made my point well enough, though.

I understand that you're only interested in the politics, but you can't just pull those theories out of your arse or thin air. They have to have a foundation. What kind of foundation would allow caging children or child brides in arranged marriages, or babies in dumpsters without punishment? Is that really what Objectivist Politics is to you?

It's clear you know way more about this than I do. Otherwise, I don't know why you'd take issue with me. Just for the sake of taking issue, I guess.

Post 15

Monday, May 26 - 6:07pm

Link

Edit

Do you really want to destroy the protection of the rule of law, and allow the tyrannical rule of lawless men and women who have no legal boundaries to their action, in order to impose your version of rationality upon people who may be blissfully happy with their delusions?

It isn't just my version.

So parents caging children for the sake of future breeding is okay with you too, Jim?
You know that's what's going on, figuratively speaking. I wish I could be hard hearted like Luke, and not give a shit what people do to the potential born into their care, but I can't.

Existing law is sufficient for you, Jim? Fascinating. Maybe you can explain the difference between the FLDS lifestyle and that of parents who sell their children for sex. One does it for money, the other for the glory of God. One goes to jail, the other is reunited with their asset.

Something else you said bothers me:

A careful reading of the Mormon scriptures (and I have read the Mormon scriptures, including the Bible, cover to cover) turns up all sorts of improbable notions that a logical person would notice and gradually become more and more uneasy with.

I have a sense that the damage is done at such an early age, that the idea of questioning anything never occurs to these people. Logic doesn't play a role. It can't. That part of the brain has been destroyed. They've learned to embrace their slavery.

You were an adult when introduced to the Church. Why you fell for it is a mystery, but not important. The important thing is that you had the tools to break out.

FLDS followers break the tools at birth. I have no sympathy for their "persecution."

Post 16

Monday, May 26 - 9:50pm

Link

Edit

"So parents caging children for the sake of future breeding is okay with you too, Jim?
You know that's what's going on, figuratively speaking. I wish I could be hard hearted like Luke, and not give a shit what people do to the potential born into their care, but I can't."

By "caging" you mean "raising them in a place and culture that is somewhat isolated from the outside world"?

By "for the sake of future breeding" you mean "teaching them that having lots of children is a good thing"?

Well, by that definition every mainstream Mormon is attempting to do pretty much the same thing, along with some parents in gated communities, homeschooled, etc. You just object to them being sufficiently different from you, and feel that is cause for governmental intervention.

"Existing law is sufficient for you, Jim?"

Umm, if you have some suggestions for changes in Texas law that would address the "problem" you seek to remedy -- changes that wouldn't be struck down by the first judge that heard a challenge, I'd be fascinated to hear them. Bear in mind that any such change would have to comply with the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause -- unless you think that has to go too. The good people in Texas have been furiously contemplating this for several years now, and haven't come up with anything remotely Constitutional other than raising the age of consent.

"Fascinating. Maybe you can explain the difference between the FLDS lifestyle and that of parents who sell their children for sex."

Umm, the FLDS don't sell their children, and can't force their children to go along with being married or having sex without breaking a host of existing laws, including ones against rape?

"Something else you said bothers me:

A careful reading of the Mormon scriptures (and I have read the Mormon scriptures, including the Bible, cover to cover) turns up all sorts of improbable notions that a logical person would notice and gradually become more and more uneasy with.
I have a sense that the damage is done at such an early age, that the idea of questioning anything never occurs to these people. Logic doesn't play a role. It can't. That part of the brain has been destroyed. They've learned to embrace their slavery. You were an adult when introduced to the Church. Why you fell for it is a mystery, but not important. The important thing is that you had the tools to break out.

FLDS followers break the tools at birth. I have no sympathy for their "persecution.""

A quick google search will turn up a plethora of books by people who were raised in the Church and then left it. I have met two such ex-Mormons in what amounted to an intervention, who are trying to convince others to leave the Church too. They seemed really good at questioning stuff. The name of their organization is "Concerned Christians". Feel free to google them, call them up, and ask actual ex-Mormons who were born in the Church if their ability to reason was broken. You'll find you are quite mistaken.

These are not the only two such people I have met. I have met a ton of Mormons, from the most Peter Priesthood and Molly Mormon fanatics who hold high leadership positions, to those blandly but unthinkingly going along with the herd, to those on the verge of leaving, to those completely cutting off all contact and totally rebelling -- getting drunk, smoking pot, having lots of promiscuous sex, the works -- to folks like "Concerned Christians" who are actively trying to get others to quit the Church. We're talking about a thousand data points here -- I've met and gotten to know that many members -- and each person reacts differently to the indoctrination. They DON'T lose their capacity to choose. Almost half of the Church membership of 13 million worldwide is inactive, and only about 20% of the active adult members hold Temple Recommends (the sign of living by all the rules). They're really not all Morbots as you assume. They're individuals. Time and time again I've heard LDS parents talk about how one or more of their kids, raised from birth, have left the Church. Almost every General Conference one of the talks is about these kids who have left.

You appear to be unfamiliar with PKs -- Preacher Kids -- a class of kids who rebel against religious indoctrination. Now, why do you think that is so common a phenomenon that they have given the syndrome a name, and kids in every conceivable religious denomination do this?

Haven't met any FLDS, but from what I heard they are basically just like Mormons used to be in the 1800s, before the big push to blend in and become accepted by mainstream society (which picked up steam in the 1950s).

Post 17

Tuesday, May 27 - 3:43am

Link

Edit

A quick google search will turn up a plethora of books by people who were raised in the Church and then left it. I have met two such ex-Mormons in what amounted to an intervention, who are trying to convince others to leave the Church too. They seemed really good at questioning stuff.

If that's true, why aren't they all questioning it? I don't expect Donnie and Marie to be okay with the fundamentalist lifestyle. Their ideas about what it means to be a Mormon and those of FLDS amount to two different religions, don't you think?

Your other answers were quite good, if I may say, but I have to get to work now.

Post 18

Tuesday, May 27 - 5:22am

Link

Edit

Teresa, I will consider your interesting questions in due time and perhaps eventually write an article on the subject -- but not right now.

In the meanwhile, I will side with Jim and his "rule of law" arguments (which I sanctioned in Post 16) at the expense of putting isolated children at risk of some of the abuses that you describe.

Why?

I disbelieve in endowing government with the God-like properties of omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence that it would require to assure that every child is conceived and born into a caring and capable family.

I see no other way to assure that all the objections you raise could never, ever happen.

Notice that at no time did I ever say I sanctioned abusing children via caging, prostituting, etc.

I simply suggested that rule of law via individual rights of parents should take precedence over hysterical shrieks of "truth" demanding state interference.

I also recommend my article "Mister Know Enough" for some food for thought about exactly how much knowledge is "enough" knowledge.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/27, 6:09am)

Post 19

Tuesday, May 27 - 9:53am

Link

Edit

This is a difficult case because:
1 - In general, "child welfare" services are utterly horrible and do anything but.
2 - The aformentioned agencies are well known for disregarding civil liberties.
3 - No matter what the truth of it was, any action should have required the same standard of proof of any other illegal activities in order for action to be justified. The reason being we never do know what the truth is until after the fact, if then.
4 - I still doubt that a child raised in a closed environment and "told" by her elders to marry "x" has much real choice in the matter. I can easily see abuse being very likely - but bring me strong evidence first.

I am starting to think this was much more so a case of this cult - and that is rather what they are - being victimized because they are a cult, and don't hold to beliefs the rest of the community does. Doesn't mean the cultists are all innocent, but did the government meet the standards of proof before intervening? Looks like they did not.

FLDS: Free Will vs. Cultural Context