Lost Boys

I have been trying to get my head around a tired old controversy. I don't like to comment about something if I cannot make some sense out of the matter in my own brain. In the tireless crusade against Mormon fundamentalism, one popular rallying cry deals with the allegedly "lost" boys of the Arizona Strip.

I believe that Utah's public officials and the supposedly "lost" boys themselves already genuinely resent the "Lost Boy" term. I actually resent the whole concept. I do think I have figured out why the whole controversy is cheap and over-inflated.

First, however, I cannot resist mentioning that Silsby lady from Boise. I mean the one who enlisted a bunch of her fellow church-members to race down to earthquake-stricken Haiti to scoop up a bus-load of cute little black kids (it didn't go well . . . . ). Some people lust after kids. Some are imprisoned. Some are just busybody do-gooders. Either way, one trait in human nature drives some people to want to "rescue" children from family situations they see as unworthy. They think it is right to confiscate the children and place them by force in a new environment. That Silsby lady reminds me of some Utah and Texas folk.

When the pilgrims showed up on our eastern shores, they formed closed, faith-based communities. I mean they blended religion with geography. All the folk in the village were of largely like mind and went to the same Sunday services. Dissension was looked upon with disapproval.

So lets look at the hue and cry over the "Lost Boys" of Colorado City and Hildale. I don't know any of them, but I am sure about one thing. There are two ways to become a "Lost Boy [or girl]":

1. Conduct yourself in a manner which is utterly unacceptable to your family - perhaps to the extent that it is no longer appropriate or safe (considering other siblings) for you to remain in your home. In this case you will probably end up being asked to find alternative accommodations.

2. Decide that you are not ideologically in tune with the secular or religious guidelines set forth for your faith-based community. In this case, you will probably end up wanting to seek alternative accommodations.

So now back to the ideological poachers - there seems to be no shortage of crusaders who want to swoop in and rescue you. My point is that ungovernability and disaffection among youth are an aspect of human life in all parts of the globe. It's just infinitely easier to criticize a faith-based community for challenges among its youth when that community is concentrated in one geographic location. It's also convenient and tantalizing when you hate that community's religion. However, when you look at the two scenarios mentioned above, each has complete legitimacy, and for both parties. Should a religious congregation not have the right to maintain homogeneity and order in its society? Should people not have the right to leave a church and choose a new one (or none)?

This may seem foreign to the average cosmopolitan, but the united states of America were not established to build Cosmopolis, they were established to ensure Constitutional and religious freedoms to Christian townships and their residents.

Our modern, maritime society has played Robin Hood, confiscating from the have's to cater to the have-not's. Welfare entitlements purchase votes at elections. Society cannot quite decide whether to besiege the FLDS for encouraging their young people to stay or for coaxing them to leave, yet it anxiously awaits the opportunity to gather them up and re-program them (with promises of soda pop and candy). Let me venture to say that the whole "Lost Boy" charade has been mostly about political fodder and self-aggrandizing kid-poachers.

I want also to add the post-script that this argument about "not enough girls to go around" is absurd. How many 21st century men are clamoring to get married (or are honorable and worthy enough to be married)? One of the biggest problems the LDS Church faces is the extraordinarily large number of spinsters and divorcees.

With all due respect to those young men and women who have become displaced and needy, I say that exploiting the disaffected for political or personal gain is reprehensible (and Ruth Stubbs would agree).

Bill Medvecky makes some good points

I was reading the FREE THE FLDS CHILDREN website today and found the following post from Bill Medvecky. There are also several intelligent comments below his post.

http://www.flds.ws/2010/02/17/when-is-a-co-operative-not-a-co-operative/

I have noticed that the Utah Supreme Court has a handful of FLDS cases in its lap, and much of Christendom waits with bated breath (or is it baited hook ???) for the decisions.

I know it's cheap, but I am tickled to watch what this august panel will do. I read with great gusto the language of the majority in the Rodney Holm (State v. Holm) case. One of the justices (I can't remember if it was Wilkins or Nehring) launched into a bizarre diatribe about how he would never want to be seen to be worrying about public backlash, but he didn't dare be the first judge to legitimize fundamentalist Mormon polygamy when so many people cringe and shudder at the practice.

In my experience (and I don't know which ones of the Justices are card-carrying LDS) the anti-polygamy sentiment in the mother Church is institutional and hard-coded in the DNA. The message to Latter-day Saints, whether overt or subliminal, is - "We hate polygamy/ists so deeply, that, if you get a chance to do some harm to one of them - get him or her fired, get them out of the neighborhood, avoid associating with them, etc., - then do it, and all will be well with you at the last day."

So, back to the Utah supremes - how should they rule? In the Warren Jeffs "rape-as-an-accomplice" appeal, Wally Bugden made enough brilliant arguments (about the absurdity of the conviction), that any self-respecting Constitutionalist would acquit Warren. However, there is the sticky part. If you vote for Jeffs, you are voting against Monson, irrespective of the Constitution and good legal principles.

In the question of whether District Court Judge Disease Lintbag did the right thing when she corrupted the 1998 UEP trust intents and installed Bruise (LDS) Weaselin to plunder the trust and besiege the beneficiaries, - again, it is sticky. Some would say that the beneficiaries are foreclosed from protesting because they did not do it soon enough. That is kind of like a passport for Shurtless and Weasan to trample on the FLDS ad libitum/ad infinitum. When the A.G. alleges abuse on the part of the UEP trustee, he can do whatever and whenever. When the FLDS people point out the hubris and barbarism of the "S.O.B." Fiduciary, they are told they are out of time and out of luck.

The third of these cases to be adjudicated involves whether an attorney for the earlier incarnation of the UEP trust may maintain his attorney/client confidentiality privilege in the face of Weaselin's demand to invade it after it has been reworked beyond recognition.

How the majority will rule and write may hinge on their fealty to the Mother-Ship or on their allegiance to to the God-given principles of the Constitution, but the beautiful thing is that they have to SAY SOMETHING. They have to come up with some kind of rationale (however contorted) to explain why they are ruling against the FLDS (if they do). They cannot simply parrot the words of Justice Morrison Waite, who wrote that "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe . . " http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/reynoldsvus.html

Sincerely, I wish that these decisions were not so fraught with political and ecclesiastical implications, but I do pray that common sense will prevail (as it clearly did in Justice Durham's stinging rebuke of the majority in Holm) - - GO CHRISTINE !!!!!, (and GO Mike Z. !!!). Plus, I pray that, despite the individual failings and imperfections of FLDS members, the people and courts of the state of Utah will realize that bullying defenseless citizens will not accelerate their journey towards glory in this life or the next.

Don't Be FLDS !!!!!!

I have been wracking my brains for a good while now to understand what is wrong with being an FLDS member. I mean, the way the media presents it, it must not be fun to be FLDS; it must not be financially rewarding or intellectually liberating. However, today it finally hit me, and everything fell into place. Now I understand what the problem is and I can honestly say to any enquirer -"DON'T BE FLDS!" Here is why:

If you are FLDS, you will not be entitled to:

Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Assembly
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Association
Freedom from unlawful searches and seizures

You will not be entitled to:

Believe what you want
Follow the guidance of a Prophet (like LDS people can)
Own a business
Relocate to a different state
Raise your children according to your religion
Love several partners
Wear your favorite clothes without getting laughed at
Enjoy attorney-client privilege
Get your stuff back after the government steals it
Use a cell-phone
Have your day in court
Own a trust
Hold public office
Be a judge or a police officer
Adopt children
Build a temple and protect it
Have "all things in common"
Home-school your children
Keep to yourself

It's a good thing there were no FLDS at the time the Constitution was framed - or else there would have been a phrase in it such as, "This Constitution affords limitations on government powers and assures God-given protections to all except FLDS members."

Now you know why you wouldn't want to be FLDS. Just be glad you are an American and you live in a country that promises "Liberty and Justice for most".

The Wall Is Cracking

GRITS FOR BREAKFAST has an intelligent discussion brewing over Mohave County Judge Steven Conn's decision to accept the stipulation of both the defense and the prosecution in Warren Jeffs' Arizona case.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/02/az-judge-suppresses-evidence-from.html

Bottom line: the mountain of evidence submitted by Michael Piccarreta alleging that the YFZ Ranch raid court orders and evidence seizures were illegal has gotten the attention of at least one judge. One would think that many humans in public service have an instinctive animus towards the practitioners of plural marriage. Look at the Rozita Swinton prosecution. In a multitude of states, the prosecution and law enforcement community is collaborating to build a wall of silence and obfuscation. A vast array of polygamy-haters is doing its best to keep the wall from cracking.

"The FLDS are grooming young boys to become sex abusers"

"The babies (male and female) are at risk of imminent physical harm"

"FLDS leaders systematically fracture the bones of all the children"

"At least 25 girls under the age of 15 were pregnant"

"All YFZ Ranch residents were residents of a single family dwelling"

"The FLDS religion (Mormonism) constitutes a culture of abuse"

"Pubic hairs were discovered in FLDS beds"

"The FLDS plan to take over the political machinery in Texas"

"FLDS marriage ceremonies are inherently criminal"

"Dale Evans Barlow can be in Arizona and Texas at the same time"

Come on, people! If you embrace this hysteria, you are like the Judeans of 33 A.D. who lusted for the crucifixion of the Nazarene for performing too many miracles and for catching the Pharisees in their false doctrines. As one blogger put it, Warren Jeffs was probably the real culprit in the Kennedy assassination.

I admit, there are a few people I passionately dislike. However, it is entirely beneath me to stoop to using legal machinations unjustly to make their lives miserable and confiscate their children.

So, here's what I think: the wall is cracking. Barbarous Wart-hog can't go on forever punishing the FLDS at the expense of justice. Judge Steven Conn has seen the light. The Texas Appeals courts can see the light. The raid was a shameless cabal. The conspirators/(-trices) muddied the evidence and lied about their collusion. You simply cannot cover up this much dirtyness forever. This is the stuff of a good Eastwood movie. How many movies have you seen where the corrupt government official commits evil and fraud, and the poor protagonist(s) struggles for 95 minutes to expose the dastardly deceit? It's formulaic. The tide is turning (just like the support for Obaminacare). Pretty soon, the perpetrators will be running for deeper cover and pointing fingers at each other.

I'm not calling for my gracious readers to revere me or Warren Jeffs (or any mortal man, for that matter), I'm simply saying that we should esteem justice, not lies. The Constitution was set aside in the 1860's, but that is no excuse for us to trample on its precepts.