A possible future Koreshianesque situation?


PDA






DigMe
October 31, 2004, 01:03 AM
This month's issue of Texas Monthly features an interesting article. It's long but a very interesting read about a situation that has potential to turn ugly. I would link to the article but you have to be a subscriber so I'll just post it here.


Sects With Strangers by Skip Hollandsworth

An offshoot of the Mormon Church that's big on polygamy has set up shop in West Texas. Multiple partners we can handle. It’s the possibility of another David Koresh freak show that worries us.

IT WAS THE LOCAL PILOTS who first started noticing the construction work. Whenever they took off in their single-engine airplanes from the dirt runway just outside Eldorado, the tiny West Texas town about 45 miles south of San Angelo, they would see buildings being erected on a ranch 4 miles north of town.

Like many of the community’s 1,900 residents, the pilots had heard the story that the 1,691-acre ranch was being turned into a hunting retreat. At least that’s what the man who bought the property had told the real estate agent who brokered the deal back in November 2003. The man had said that he was a builder in Utah and that he needed a place to take his clients, many of whom were based in Las Vegas, for hunting trips. It was a strange story. Why would a man who could hunt elk and bear in Utah want to come to heat-baked West Texas to hunt for white-tailed deer and quail? Maybe, some townspeople speculated, this man’s Las Vegas clients were members of the Mafia.

A couple of months after the ranch had been purchased, one of the pilots, a retired engineer named Joe Christian, handed Randy Mankin, the editor of the weekly Eldorado Success, a disc filled with photographs he had taken of the property from his airplane with his digital camera. “Tell me if you think a hunting lodge is getting built out there,” said Christian. Mankin popped the disc into his computer and studied the photographs. He noticed that three buildings were going up, each one three stories tall and as wide as a Holiday Inn. Together, they could probably hold at least a couple hundred people. In other photos, he saw rectangular patches of dirt: Apparently, foundations were being laid for even bigger buildings.

The burly, 49-year-old Mankin had been an oil-field worker in Eldorado before he bought the newspaper a decade ago. He sold the ads, took the photos, compiled the community news, laid out the paper, and wrote a weekly opinion column, Over the Back Fence. The one thing he had not done was investigative reporting, but he decided that this was as good a time as any to start.

He drove down County Road 300 to take a look at the ranch. There was a lock and a No Trespassing sign on the gate, and on a pole next to the gate was an infrared surveillance camera. Mankin drove back to the office and asked his wife, Kathy, who worked for him as his assistant reporter, assistant photographer, and assistant ad salesperson, to go over to the courthouse and look up some land deeds. She learned that the ranch had been purchased by a limited partnership called YFZ Land and that a man named David S. Allred was the company’s principal manager. Kathy and Randy searched for YFZ on the Internet, but they came up with nothing. They searched for David Allred. Again, nothing. Randy asked everybody who had been associated with the purchase what he or she knew about Allred. Everyone told him that he was a pleasant, middle-aged, polite man who wore long-sleeved shirts that he always kept buttoned at the wrists. They also said he had learned from an advertisement in the Internet edition of Livestock Weekly that the ranch was for sale, and he had seemed happy to pay the asking price, which was reportedly between $800 and $1,000 an acre.

For about a week and a half, Mankin tried to figure out what YFZ Land was doing. But during his stakeouts at the front gate of the ranch, he could not get any of the truck drivers to slow down to talk to him. Many days, he never saw any trucks at all. He realized that the drivers were using potholed dirt roads at the back of the ranch to get in and out so they would not be seen. Then, in mid-March, when he was at home watching television with Kathy, a woman named Flora Jessop called from Phoenix. Jessop told Mankin that she was an antipolygamy activist.

“A what?” said Mankin.

Jessop said she had been featured recently on ABC’s Primetime Thursday talking about her attempts to help two teenage girls escape from a small community on the Arizona-Utah border north of the Grand Canyon. The community (which is actually two sister cities: Colorado City, Arizona, and Hildale, Utah) is made up almost entirely of members of a religious sect, an offshoot of the Mormon Church that calls itself the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or FLDS. Jessop told Mankin that all male members of the FLDS believe that they have a sacred obligation to marry many times. She said that girls as young as fourteen in FLDS families are often ordered by the sect’s leader, Prophet Warren Jeffs, to marry FLDS men, some of whom are four times the girls’ ages. Jessop said that the ABC report had mentioned that Jeffs, who never spoke to the press and was constantly surrounded by bodyguards, had been looking for another place to live to escape the pressure being placed on him by Utah and Arizona law enforcement agencies investigating allegations of underage marriages in his community. Was it possible, she asked, that Jeffs and some of his reported 35 to 75 wives were moving to Eldorado?

Mankin sat back in his chair, wondering which of his friends was playing a prank on him.

Jessop insisted she was serious. She said that someone in Eldorado had seen the television piece and had called her to ask about the odd development going on out at the ranch north of town.

“Well, okay, ma’am. Do the names David Allred or YFZ mean anything to you?” Mankin asked.

“My God, that’s them!” exclaimed Jessop. “The polygamists! They’ve come to Eldorado!”

AND THUS BEGAN AN UNUSUAL SAGA that has included frantic press conferences, terrifying predictions of Branch Davidian–like shoot-outs, and West Texas being West Texas, a lot of jokes at the coffee shop about how a man could ever think that a heavenly existence meant living with more than one woman at the same time. Until Mankin broke the story of the FLDS and its new ranch compound—“Corporate Retreat or Prophet’s Refuge?” read the front-page headline in the Success—Eldorado (pronounced “El-doh-RAY-doh”), the sole incorporated municipality in Schleicher County, was little known in Texas except for its one big social event of the summer, the Running of the Bull, in which contestants stand on a stage in the middle of town in the sweltering heat and compete to tell the best lie and the best pun. The man who puts on the event, eccentric Eldorado native Jim Runge, also sponsors the annual Elgoatarod, which he describes as Eldorado’s version of the Iditarod dogsled race in Alaska, except that contestants race in goat-drawn carts around the town square. “I thought the Elgoatarod would really be the thing that put us on the map,” Runge said. “But then here came these marrying people.”

In fact, it wasn’t long after Flora Jessop, an intense young woman who grew up in an FLDS family in Colorado City before running away as a teenager herself, had her telephone conversation with Mankin that she began receiving phone calls from other reporters asking if she knew anything about the new hideout for Jeffs and his followers. Eventually she decided to come to Eldorado to hold a press conference in front of the sheriff’s office, which was attended by network television correspondents, newspaper reporters from as far away as Salt Lake City, and even Jon Krakauer, the famous journalist whose most recent best-seller, Under the Banner of Heaven, focuses on the more disturbing activities of the FLDS and other Mormons still adamantly devoted to polygamy, a practice that the mainline Mormon church abandoned in the late nineteenth century. Krakauer brought an autographed copy of the book to Mankin. “You’re in the eye of a hurricane,” he told him. “Brace yourself. Your life has changed.”

About 150 Eldorado residents also came to the press conference. Jessop told the crowd that YFZ stands for “Yearn for Zion,” which is one of the favorite phrases of Jeffs, who is said to be 48 years old and who is described in Krakauer’s book as “a tall, bony man with a bulging Adam’s apple, a high-pitched voice, and a frightening sense of his own perfection in the eyes of God.” Jeffs took over as president of the FLDS after the death of his father, in 2002, and according to Jessop, he has told his followers (there are an estimated 10,000 in Colorado City–Hildale and a few thousand more in Canada) that God speaks to him directly, just as God once did to his father, about what people must do in order to reach Zion. Among other things passed down by God has been the commandment that all FLDS members must wear, just as Mormons did in the nineteenth century, long underwear at all times, regardless of the weather. Over their underwear, the men must wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants, and the women must wear old-fashioned gingham dresses that cover them from neck to toe. To keep FLDS children away from worldly influences, they must be homeschooled and are not allowed to read newspapers or watch television. Most significantly, the children are taught from an early age that in order to please God, they must engage in “plural marriages.” (None of the marriages are civil ceremonies or registered with the state, which prevents authorities from prosecuting the FLDS for breaking laws prohibiting bigamy or polygamy.) In fact, said an Arizona county official who came with Jessop to the press conference, the sole responsibility of females in the FLDS is to submit to their husbands and give birth to babies “until their insides drop out.”

Jessop told the crowd that because FLDS members believe they are God’s chosen people and do everything they can not to associate with outsiders, it was unlikely that they would try to recruit new members or steal away the town’s healthiest teenage girls. But she did say that the FLDS men were trained in survival tactics and were ready to kill any Gentiles who tried to threaten their way of life, just as the Branch Davidians once did. What’s more, said Jessop, Jeffs has taught his followers to “bleed the beast”: to take advantage of any government assistance they can get, from food stamps and public welfare to medical care. Some reporters who follow FLDS activities say that tens of millions of dollars a year in welfare and other government funds go to the Colorado City–Hildale community. The very same thing was no doubt about to happen in Eldorado, Jessop said.

IN MAY, SCHLEICHER COUNTY SHERIFF David Doran let the word out that he had finally had a meeting with David Allred, who is said to be Jeffs’s right-hand man, and three of his associates. Doran said that they looked like typical hardworking, middle-aged ranchers except for the fact that they did wear the long-sleeved shirts and that they were also surprisingly thin. Obviously, he concluded, they didn’t drink beer or eat enchiladas.

During the meeting, Doran quizzed the men extensively about their plans for the ranch. Allred admitted that he had made up the hunting retreat story, but he said he had done so only because they were a fiercely private group and they didn’t want the national press descending on Eldorado. Allred also said that the ranch would be used as a retreat for only two hundred of the most faithful FLDS followers. They were not going to try to create a town like Colorado City, Allred said, nor would they be applying for welfare or sending their children to public schools. He also said that, while the ranch residents would likely be registering to vote, no one in the group was planning to run for public office in hopes of controlling the local government.

Doran was aware of the rumor that Jeffs wanted to move to Texas because the Utah attorney general’s office was investigating him for having sex with underage girls. (Jeffs’s attorney has told reporters that the charges are blatantly false.) Yet Allred said little to Doran about Jeffs and would not confirm or deny that he might be moving to Eldorado.

Doran had one more question he just had to ask: “Fellows, I’m sorry, but I have to tell you. I have enough trouble with one wife. Why would you want more than one?”

One of Allred’s associates, who was carrying the Book of Mormon, launched into a solemn speech about how the founder of their religion, Joseph Smith, was an avid polygamist and how the original Mormon doctrine treated polygamy as a sacred act. He told Doran that mainstream Mormons had abandoned the faith by not engaging in multiple marriages (mainstream Mormons say that a new revelation from God after Smith’s death ordered them to stop polygamy). If human beings want to reach the highest levels of celestial life, the man explained to Doran, then they need to maintain three or more marriages. “Our many wives are a blessing from God,” he said.

“Wow,” said Doran. “That’s a new one on me.”

THROUGHOUT THIS PAST SUMMER AND FALL, the questions about the compound only increased as Mankin published more aerial photos in the Success that showed additional buildings going up, including another dormitory and what appeared to be a giant meeting hall that Mankin figured could easily seat two thousand people. The photos also showed several new dirt roads, as well as a garden the size of a football field. “The idea that they were building a compound out there for only two hundred of their followers was ridiculous,” Mankin said. Yet no one in Eldorado could get any more answers. Allred apparently had returned to Utah, and the men who were left in charge of the compound were evasive whenever Sheriff Doran got them on the phone. They were so intent on guarding their privacy that when a bulldozer needed to be repaired, they hauled it to the county road so that the mechanics who had been hired to fix it would not be able to see the compound. They also requested information on how to obtain permits to maintain their own volunteer fire department and ambulance service.

When I visited Eldorado in September, most of the residents still hadn’t met even one of their new neighbors. Someone had seen a woman wearing an old-fashioned dress sitting in the passenger seat of a truck at the Shell station while a man in a long-sleeved shirt, apparently her husband, filled up the truck with gas. But the woman kept her head down the entire time and refused to speak. At city hall, Mankin ran across a compound resident named Ernie Jessop, who was trying to find out some information about water rights. “You know, things would be a lot better around here if you had a spokesman to speak to our community instead of acting so secretive,” Mankin told him.

“Sir, we don’t talk to outsiders,” Jessop said. “That’s the way my grandfather was, the way my father was, the way I was raised, and the way I will raise my children. It’s a tradition. We congregate to ourselves.”

“Around here, that’s what we call Aggies,” said Mankin, trying to be jovial.

“I’m sorry. An Aggie?” replied Jessop.

The one person who has talked publicly for the FLDS is the group’s Salt Lake City–based attorney, Rodney Parker, who has said that the FLDS members “crave an isolated place where they can just live their lives in peace.” So far, that is exactly what has happened in Eldorado. No one from the compound has applied for welfare or shown up at the tiny Eldorado hospital asking for free medical care. Nevertheless, the town’s fears were not appeased when a paperback version of Krakauer’s book came out in June. In the book, one of Jeffs’s former associates is quoted as saying that there is “about a fifty-fifty chance” that Jeffs would “start something like what happened in Waco or Jonestown if the police come in here and try to take him. I really think it’s possible. It’s scary. Warren is a very fanatical person, and his followers are true believers.”

In fact, about the only person these days in Eldorado who has a positive outlook about the polygamists is Elgoatarod founder Jim Runge, who believes that the FLDS will eventually tire of the publicity they are getting in Texas and move somewhere else. “And then we can take over the property and turn it into an Olympic village,” he told me. “I’ve already started an organizing committee to get the Olympics to Eldorado. I’m telling you, as soon as the marrying people leave, this could really be our chance to shine.”

brad cook

If you enjoyed reading about "A possible future Koreshianesque situation?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
FeebMaster
October 31, 2004, 01:17 AM
Folks in Eldorado sound real neighborly with their stakeouts and plans of olympic glory. I'm thinking of moving there.

Justin
October 31, 2004, 01:39 AM
"Hey, that crazy guy said he just wants to be left alone. Let's go bug him!"

:scrutiny:

SMLE
October 31, 2004, 02:10 AM
Isn't Biblical polygamy protected by the "Free Excercise" clause of the First Amendment? Incest and sex with under-age girls? Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But if the women involved are 18 or older, why CAN'T we just leave them alone?

c_yeager
October 31, 2004, 03:33 AM
The one person who has talked publicly for the FLDS is the group’s Salt Lake City–based attorney, Rodney Parker, who has said that the FLDS members “crave an isolated place where they can just live their lives in peace.”

If they hold true to this then i don't have a problem with it at all. of course I'm sure that somewhere there is an angry mob getting the torches together.

carebear
October 31, 2004, 03:41 AM
SMLE,

You need to read Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" before you start defending their right to do what they want in private too vehemently. The multiple marriages commence and are consummated at around age 12-13. The girls are assigned their husbands by the leaders of the sect. This is not willing, of age partnering.

It's a scary bad cult with a violent streak toward those who attempt to penetrate it or leave it.

mrmeval
October 31, 2004, 07:50 AM
carebear wrote:
________________________
SMLE,

You need to read Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" before you start defending their right to do what they want in private too vehemently. The multiple marriages commence and are consummated at around age 12-13. The girls are assigned their husbands by the leaders of the sect. This is not willing, of age partnering.

It's a scary bad cult with a violent streak toward those who attempt to penetrate it or leave it.
__________________________

Whatever church you believe in is a cult and there's plenty who would cheer at it's gassing.
The same tripe was stated about the Branch Davidians and I've heard it stated about mainstream churches.

WilderBill
October 31, 2004, 08:47 AM
Well, I don't know much about them, but I can tell you that if enough poeple insist that they will be the next Branch Davidians, then it might just come to pass.
I can also say that in an area where people may actually know all their neighbors for miles around, isolationism may not be well accepted.

DigMe
October 31, 2004, 10:51 AM
Folks in Eldorado sound real neighborly with their stakeouts and plans of olympic glory. I'm thinking of moving there.

Just want to make sure you know that the guy was joking about the olympic thing...it's the same guy that does the "igoatarod" race every year. Wacky feller.

brad cook

tyme
October 31, 2004, 11:49 AM
It really annoys me that so many people believe that this imaginary law exists. It must be the product of social brainwashing.
(SMLE) Incest and sex with under-age girls? Prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. But if the women involved are 18 or older, why CAN'T we just leave them alone?
Age of consent is not always 18. For instance, it's 17 in Texas, which is where these clowns are. It's 16 in a lot of states.
http://www.ageofconsent.com

Parents/guardians can ground minors and prevent them from seeing anyone, but even that power isn't absolute. The minor can run away, become emancipated, etc.

carebear
October 31, 2004, 02:58 PM
Mrmeval,

Okay, my church is a "cult" too. Fine. I'm off for there now.

But, we don't force our 12 year old girls to "marry" 50 year old men and have sex with them on the say so of one supreme leader and his family/dynasty. Nor to we kill wives of people who try to leave our "cult".

So I guess there is a difference, no matter the label.

Ya know, that whole abstract concept of "good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong" thing.

:rolleyes:

FeebMaster
October 31, 2004, 03:09 PM
DigMe: Just want to make sure you know that the guy was joking about the olympic thing...it's the same guy that does the "igoatarod" race every year. Wacky feller.

Yes I understood that it was a joke, but I didn't think it was very funny. Jokes about driving people out of an area so you can get your mits on their property usually aren't, in my opinion.

MeekandMild
October 31, 2004, 06:01 PM
Koreshianesque

That's a pretty good word. I think I'll use it the next time I run out of words at a meeting at work. "Well it looks like things are getting pretty Koreshianesque here, so I'll just take a bathroom break." :neener:

SMLE
October 31, 2004, 06:32 PM
Carebear:
You need to read Krakauer's book "Under the Banner of Heaven" before you start defending their right to do what they want in private too vehemently.From the article:and even Jon Krakauer, the famous journalist whose most recent best-seller, Under the Banner of Heaven, focuses on the more disturbing activities of the FLDS and other Mormons still adamantly devoted to polygamy, And should I read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" before I start defending Judaism too "vehemently"? :scrutiny:

Like I said, if they're abusing under age girls, prosecute them. But why ISN"T polygamy between consenting ADULTS protected by the 1st Amendment?


Is YOUR Church BATF&E approved?

White Horseradish
October 31, 2004, 06:39 PM
But why ISN"T polygamy between consenting ADULTS protected by the 1st Amendment?

Look at any Republican blog and search for gay marriage. Same reasons - It's not traditional, God told me it ain't right, etc.

griz
October 31, 2004, 06:57 PM
Someone had seen a woman wearing an old-fashioned dress sitting in the passenger seat of a truck at the Shell station while a man in a long-sleeved shirt, apparently her husband, filled up the truck with gas. But the woman kept her head down the entire time and refused to speak. At city hall, Mankin ran across a compound resident named Ernie Jessop, who was trying to find out some information about water rights. “You know, things would be a lot better around here if you had a spokesman to speak to our community instead of acting so secretive,” Mankin told him.

As if it wasn't bad enough that they want to be left alone, they also wear LONG SLEEVE SHIRTS!!!!!

I started to make a joke about burning them at the stake but in the context of the thread I won't.

sendec
October 31, 2004, 07:06 PM
I have nothing of substance to add, but would also like to offer kudos for coming up with "Koreshianesque"

DigMe
October 31, 2004, 07:24 PM
Thanks for the props on my vocabulary invention. :) I hereby proclaim that "Koreshianesque" can also be a descriptive term for thick, dark prescription glasses. :p

brad cook

DigMe
October 31, 2004, 07:25 PM
Yes I understood that it was a joke, but I didn't think it was very funny. Jokes about driving people out of an area so you can get your mits on their property usually aren't, in my opinion.

I guess that's just where you differ from cynics like me. Luckily humor is subjective.

brad cook

Moparmike
October 31, 2004, 07:30 PM
As if it wasn't bad enough that they want to be left alone, they also wear LONG SLEEVE SHIRTS!!!!!

I started to make a joke about burning them at the stake but in the context of the thread I won't.Well, they did turn someone in the town into a newt. And they also weigh as much as a duck. Therefore...;)






In reality, as long as everything is legal and all consent to what happens, then they should be left alone. If I bought 100 acres and decided to have a Beagle Ranch*, then would I be hassled because my sanity was questionable in my neighbors eyes?:scrutiny:



*Please note that it would not be one of those horrid Breeding Farms that you see on TV. I just like Beagles.:)

Sindawe
October 31, 2004, 07:46 PM
So this would be a word/term whos meaning depends apon its context, right?

"We have a really Koreshianesque group here" - A group whos beliefs and value are not inline with the mainstream of society.

"The investigation was realy quit Koreshianesque." - A poorly executed investigation, done primarily as a show peice.

"In the end, it was all Koreshianesque" - Resulted in death, raging fires and lingering questions.

I LIKE it. Its now in my lexicon as well. :D

Igoatarod? Me thinks this fellow would win hands down.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/L_P_swepston/thor.jpg

carebear
October 31, 2004, 11:18 PM
SMLE,

I guess I'm not being clear. I don't have a legal dog in the "why polygamy between consenting adults isn't protected behaviour" fight.

To clarify, what I'm saying is, THESE FOLKS AREN'T PRACTICING POLYGAMY JUST BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS.

The "consenting" females in this case are often underage (not 16-17 yrs old, 12! ) girls, assigned by the top spiritual leader to marry far older men. When people try to pull their families out, they get threatened with excommunication, they are forcibly estranged from family members who remain inside and, in one case so far, they are killed.

That's why they keep moving, cause the law gets too hot for them.

And there's a big difference between idiotic racist propaganda and a journalistic book by a respected reporter that has backing from former members and the law enforcement community.

Yooper
October 31, 2004, 11:35 PM
Conisder the term "FBIesque" for a slightly altered perspective.

fistful
November 1, 2004, 02:08 AM
To pile more controversy on the fire:

Some conservatives are now pointing out that the Republican Party had an anti-polygamy plank in it's early years, and perhaps it should be dusted-off. They expect polygamy to be next to receive official sanction if the homosexual marriage effort is successful.

c_yeager
November 1, 2004, 02:29 AM
Age of consent is not always 18. For instance, it's 17 in Texas, which is where these clowns are. It's 16 in a lot of states.

psssst "age of consent" is a different law than statutory rape.

Age of consent means the minimum age that a person can consent to have sex in any way. For example it is LEGAL for a 17 year old to have sex with a 16 year old (assuming the age of consent is 16). But, it is ILLEGAL for a 16 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. THe idea is that below the age of 16 (or whatever the state's age of consent is) the person doesnt have the maturity to make an informed decision.

Statutory rape happens when an adult has consensual sex with am minor and it has nothing to do with the age of consent. By that i mean that "statutory rape" only happens if an adult has sex with a person under the age of 18 but over the age of consent. If an adult has sex with someone UNDER the age of consent it isnt statutory rape, it's child rape, child molestation, etc.

To give an example the age of consent in Washington state is 16. And the age of 'adulthood' is 18. The law in this state indicates that if a person over the age of 18 has sex with a person under the age of 18 AND is more than three years older than that person they have commited statutory rape.

In other words a 16 year old and a 17 year old is OK. A 17 year old and a 20 year old is OK. A 17 year old and a 21 year old is statutory rape. And a 15 year old and an 18 year old is child molestation.

hammer4nc
November 1, 2004, 08:37 AM
You might want to fax this detailed information on sex crimes over to the Dallas ATF office...aren't they the "go to agency" for serving child abuse, and zoning violation warrants in that area?;) Someone needs to stake out BillyBob's farm supply...when a bunch of suits come in to rent cattle trailers, we'll know things are about to take off...:what:

griz
November 1, 2004, 08:41 AM
THESE FOLKS AREN'T PRACTICING POLYGAMY JUST BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS.

Carebear, Maybe I didn't read the article closely enough, but can you point out to me where it says that they ARE forcing marrige on 12YO's instead of the parts that say the locals are worried about it?

tyme
November 1, 2004, 08:44 AM
No, it is not a different law.

A relationship between a 17-year-old and a 21-year-old in TX is perfectly legal, though the 17-year-old's parents might (illegally) mutiliate or kill the 21-year-old.

Statutory rape is by definition rape that occurs because age or age difference precludes ability of the younger participant to consent. Age of consent is directly relevant.

The minor/adult distinction for statutory rape is a social myth. I believed it when I was in highschool because my parents believed it, and they believed it because other parents believed it.

Child rape is something totally different, and usually involves children under a lower age than the age of consent. Typically the "child" age is somewhere in the range 12 to 14. That age is the hard limit below which nobody can have sex, regardless of age differential or the age of the other person.

Recap: The statutory rape laws typically have this form:
Nobody may have sex with anyone under age 13.
Nobody age 17 or over may have sex with anyone under 17, except when the age differential is 3 years or less.
Nobody under age 18 may have deviant sex (this is mostly in southern states, and the age can be different from the age of consent)

If none of those criteria applies, the only way for rape to occur is if consent is lacking.

c_yeager
November 1, 2004, 09:13 AM
Texas must have a different set of laws then. My information on WA state comes from an practicing assistant DA in the field so it is accurate for WA at least.

AH: I think i found the difference.Washington state and several others (link: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm ) have a "split" age of consent which reflects what I said about WA. Texas does NOT have this split so, we are both right with regards to our locations. Of course since this is actually happening in Texas what you've stated is perinent to the discussion.

It just goes to show how much states can vary in legal nuance.

RealGun
November 1, 2004, 09:47 AM
I would consider going after polygamists on grounds of slavery. These are not "consenting" adults in the true sense. Beyond that, any man who wants to create his own private hell by having more than one wife in the same house has my sympathy.

c_yeager
November 1, 2004, 09:59 AM
I would consider going after polygamists on grounds of slavery. These are not "consenting" adults in the true sense.

Thats a pretty sweeping and general statement. Could you provide a source specific to this group of people?

tyme
November 1, 2004, 10:08 AM
Even in Washington State, it's a bit more complicated than that. The 16/18 split is apparently caused by dissonance between the age of consent -- which is 16 -- and another law that prohibits "immoral communication" with minors. It's really pathetic. People wonder why there's a pervasive lack of respect for the law in general, when the law itself is contradictory.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/washington.htm

RealGun
November 1, 2004, 10:36 AM
Thats a pretty sweeping and general statement. Could you provide a source specific to this group of people?

No, and I don't have to, in context with what's already posted. If you would care to offer another point of view, feel free.

c_yeager
November 1, 2004, 11:06 AM
No, and I don't have to, in context with what's already posted. If you would care to offer another point of view, feel free.

The only thing that even remotely supports what you posted is a refference by carebear to a book by Jon Krakauer. If thats all the support you need to make accusations SLAVERY then by all means go with it. I just got the impression that you had something of substance to contribute.

SMLE
November 1, 2004, 12:35 PM
And there's a big difference between idiotic racist propaganda and a journalistic book by a respected reporter that has backing from former members and the law enforcement community. The "Protocols" once had the backing of the "law enforcement" community too. :scrutiny:

"famous journalist" and/or "respected reporter" generally = "professional BS shoveler"
"journalistic book by a respected reporter" often = "train load of BS"

I could write a book about any group I chose that would curl your hair, but would it be true? You have not provided any argument that "Under the Banner of Heaven" IS any more than, in your own words, "idiotic racist propaganda".

FWIW Carebear, I totally agree with you as far as the issue of abusing underage girls. But even an "accused" pederast deserves a fair trial. Once guilt has been firmly established, hang 'em high, but TRY them FIRST. And the "Court of Public Opinion" dosen't count.

PS: I'm playing "devil's advocate" here. Peace.

TheDutchman
November 1, 2004, 01:12 PM
Can I move there and marry the COORS TWINS

carebear
November 1, 2004, 01:22 PM
OK, I guess I'm going on the statement in the article that these are in fact FLDS members. IF that is the case then it is the same group currently being investigated by Utah and Canada for allegations of underage polygamy and the offenses therein. As I am not privy to the details of the case(s) I guess I can't "prove" a damn thing. But the interviews by Krakauer of former FLDS members and the public statements of FLDS elders where they more or less confirm that they do practice this and are not ashamed of it as it is "God's will" are pretty credible.

Krakauer is a pretty solid journalist as far as having his credibility challenged by those he has reported on on negatively in the past goes, if that's any evidence, ie no slander, libel or fraud legally alleged.

There's also no argument presented by anyone that "Under the Banner" isn't true, and since it explicitly names both FLDS elders as criminals and quotes government officials about cases, you'd think SOMEONE would complain if it weren't accurate.

I'm not a particularly credulous person and it all seems to hang together to me. But you are correct, my first assumption is just that, so i should limit my statements to confirmed FLDS-ers.

Does the devil NEED more advocates? :evil:

cropcirclewalker
November 1, 2004, 02:37 PM
My Grandmother was 13 when she married my Grandfather back in 1894. He was 20.

They had 11 children that lived past childbirth and survived through 76 years of marriage.

One of my uncles was gassed in WWI. One of my uncles was aboard the USS Helena when it was sunk by the nips. One of my uncles was AT Pearl Harbor. One of my uncles was shot (twice) on Iwo Jima. I was proud of my grandparents.

All this time I respected and loved them only to find out now that they were criminals.:what:

carebear
November 1, 2004, 02:53 PM
cropcirclewalker,

Take heart. They might not have been. Remember the "no ex post facto law" part of the ol' Connie.

Sooooooo, go Grampa!?

:D

griz
November 1, 2004, 03:07 PM
I haven't read the book but I see more of a connection with your explanation. But it still sounds like there wasn't enough evidence to convict them in Utah or Canada, despite the investigation. And the article quotes on estimated 10,000 members of the church in or near Utah. To me it seems if you have that many believers and they use women as described, there would be a lot of pregnat 14 year olds to give proof of rape. I suppose you could conceal a lot, but there also appear to be some former followers who have escaped. At least the one quoted could not provide enough evidence for conviction either.

Maybe I'm a hard sell but I see no real difference between the call to banish people for keeping to themselves and having the POTENTIAL for child abuse, and people who are peaceable but have the POTENTIAL for violence because they own guns.

carebear
November 1, 2004, 03:31 PM
And again, there may be smaller sub-sects who are the real whack jobs. I do believe the investigations are ongoing, it is just difficult to gather evidence, like solving a murder in Chinatown in the 50's.

I certainly wouldn't support "banishing" them, but if they are in fact members of such a sect, the local community should feel free to express their displeasure and local authorities be forewarned in case any evidence of actual crime is brought to their attention (prevent the 'oh, that sounds too weird to be true , go on home little girl' response).

And yes I am aware that it was violent, criminal harassment for their old views on polygamy that caused the actual LDS to move all the way out to Utah in the first place. I am not advocating such actions in any way, shape or form.

Hawkman
November 1, 2004, 04:42 PM
Why the heck would any man want more than one wife?:eek:

SLCDave
November 1, 2004, 05:19 PM
And yes I am aware that it was violent, criminal harassment for their old views on polygamy that caused the actual LDS to move all the way out to Utah in the first place. I am not advocating such actions in any way, shape or form.

They were driven out of their homes in Ohio and other places before they practiced polygamy. In Illinois, that was just a convenient excuse, among others that were used to justify it.

SMLE
November 1, 2004, 08:56 PM
They were driven out of their homes in Ohio and other places before they practiced polygamy. I know a couple of LDS folks and IIRC, the Saints didn't even START practicing polygamy until AFTER they got to Utah.

carebear
November 1, 2004, 09:20 PM
Really? I knew they were unjustifiably harrassed and knew they were pilloried for the polygamy stance.

Guess I put one and one together for a total of three. :rolleyes:

Anyway, agree or disagree with someone's religion, til they start breaking laws and hurting people you can't justify attacking them.

Marnoot
November 1, 2004, 09:48 PM
I know a couple of LDS folks and IIRC, the Saints didn't even START practicing polygamy until AFTER they got to Utah.

Actually we (I saw "we" being Mormon and having ancestors who were involved in this portion of history) began practicing it before the murder of Joseph Smith and the subsequent exodus west to escape persecution. For a more precise history, see:
http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=145

Why the heck would any man want more than one wife?
Believe it or not, Brigham Young himself thought the same thing when he first heard of the doctrine: "I felt to envy the corpse in a funeral cortege and "could hardly get over it for a long time" (Journal of Discourses Ch3 Pg266).

Also, even when practiced, it was not like you see being practiced by so-called "fundamentalists" today. Both men and women entered into marriage voluntarily.
But as mentioned, we believe that after having restored the doctrine in the last days, the Lord commanded that polygamy no longer be practiced. Since that time, all members of the church found to practice or promote the current practice are summarily excommunicated.
These who force children, young girls, or anyone into these kinds of arrangments will have to answer to God. I agree with SMLE, that any indications of abuse should be investigated, the perpetrators fairly tried, and punished if found to be guilty. We Mormons have a natural distaste for "mob 'justice,'" for obvious historical reasons. Or at least we should, unfortunately there are those that forget the lessons of history.

SMLE
November 1, 2004, 10:05 PM
Thanks for the link! I couldn't remember for certain and I called one of the LDS members I know and he couldn't remember exact details either, but what he did remember jibes with what you posted. Being Jewish, I have "natural distaste" for mob justice as well.

EricOKC
November 1, 2004, 10:11 PM
Why the heck would any man want more than one wife?

Why should we care? I mean, if some man voluntarily subjects himself to that kind of abuse, and doesnt mind having to deal with multiple women who are, lets just say, "a little touchy" one week a month, thats his decision.

fistful
November 1, 2004, 11:42 PM
As a human, a Christian (therefore a member of one of the more persecuted religions), an American, a gun nut, and overall nerd and misfit, I also have a "distaste for 'mob 'justice.''" May I now join the more- sensitive-to-religious-persecution club, too?

Marnoot
November 2, 2004, 12:26 AM
May I now join the more- sensitive-to-religious-persecution club, too?

I was just referring to the fact that for me the effects of mob mentality strikes closer to home than to some people. I don't get warm, fuzzy feelings when I read my great-great-grandfather's account of being forced by the mobs to leave Illinois in the middle of winter with his pregnant wife and young child. Just about all religions are or have been subject to persecution. The Christians by the Romans, the Muslims by the Christians, the Protestants by the Catholics, the Mormons by the Protestants, the Jews by the Nazis.
My point in this is that I wish people, whatever their religion, would look at how their own people have been mistreated in the past and would seek to prevent it from happening to others now and in the future. It's like a disfunctional chain of abuse in the human family; it needs to be broken.

All are welcome in the "No to mobs!" club!:D

carebear
November 2, 2004, 01:15 AM
Don't suppose we can get a dental plan? :D

Marnoot
November 2, 2004, 01:20 AM
Don't suppose we can get a dental plan?

I wish! My student health "insurance" doesn't cover dental. It came down to a dental visit or a russian captured K98 recently. So naturally, my WWII collection increased by one.;)

carebear
November 2, 2004, 01:49 AM
It came down to a dental visit or a russian captured K98 recently. So naturally, my WWII collection increased by one.

That's OK, bad teeth and Russia go hand in hand. :D

The_Antibubba
November 2, 2004, 09:04 AM
I wish I could link a source. There was an article about how the FLDS has been "excommunicating" teenage boys, who, having no relatives outside the sect, and having had no exposure to the modern world (plus having been told that the outside world was evil), were ending up homeless and suicidal. It seems some of the "Elder" men see these teens as competition for their young brides, and have them expelled.

Real nice. :fire:

fistful
November 2, 2004, 09:36 AM
Just about all religions are or have been subject to persecution. The Christians by the Romans and by Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Indonesia, and most other places with a Muslim majority; and by the Communists in China, Russia and elsewhere; and by the Columbine murderers, and by teachers and administrators in other public schools; and by supposed Christians throughout history; and by followers of many other belief systems.

All part of the job description, baby!

If you enjoyed reading about "A possible future Koreshianesque situation?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!