Tabs on Texas
Considering how heavily laden the events sag with gender issues, we FMHers have been surprisingly silent regarding the raid at the FLDS compound in Texas. While I can’t speak for the other permas, I imagine some of our reticence–certainly much of my own–stems from cognitive dissonance. In my sleep-deprived and thus garbled post-conference post I alluded to offense regarding how quickly we (me included) side-show gawk at the Fundamentalists, especially in light of the offense-as-usual response many Mormons instantly assume when any outsider comments upon our seemingly strange ways, both past and present.
Here’s what I’ve told those few people who have asked what I think: I don’t know. I’m torn. I toggle between sympathy for the FLDS population and the suspicion that while undoubtedly traumatic for the kids, their removal from the compound may remove them from a social system in which abuse is inherent. It may come down to a question of comparative disadvantages: is it comparatively advantageous to traumatize children by ripping them from their homes and exposing them to medical exams which replicate some of the very allegations of abuse the exams are meant to prove or disprove? If the alternative is to leave them in familiar but corrupt homes where they have no chance at truly exercising free will for the brunt of their lives? Well, if we knew the latter were true, then conclusions become facile: of course the short term trauma outweighs the long-term enervation of self. (Although, ahem, surely the State could’ve gone about things with a bit less drama. Surely. You gotta hope.)
But here’s the rub, at least for me: I also toggle between believing the Fundies, who say the “informant” is a fallacious person and that the police and press are pulling salacious detail from the air, and believing the secular voices who report rumpled bedclothes in temples and routine sexual abuse. Certainly journalistic standards and legal accountability have improved since the 19th century, but what Mormon can forget the laughable “true memoirs” of ex-Mormon women who claimed to have flung themselves from temple windows over the Salt Lake City wall and into the waters of the great Salt Lake in order to swim to safety? The lawyers among you can tell us why the State hasn’t shared more evidence from their case. At the moment, however, readers must accept on faith their assertion that “substantial evidence of abuse exists” and that the scope of evidence justified the scope of the raid. To a frightening degree, we’re caught in a large scale “he said, she said” debate between competing cultures.
The truth probably lies somewhere between those competing narratives emerging in Texas. Feminists–myself included–no doubt find what little that’s obviously true about the FLDS society’s makeup unnerving and unhealthy. Patriarchy has taken steroids, women can’t cut their hair, kids have little exposure to the outside world. Ick factor: very high. But can’t we say the same thing about the Amish? Yet you know what comes to mind when I think about them? Nice quilts! Good jam! Nifty buggies! Maybe they’re quaint, but that’s their choice. Me, I like ‘em! And you know, advocates of social liberty (which includes feminists, usually) also find the “ick factor” rather high when a group of people’s religious liberties are significantly curtailed by the state. The only justifiable reason for so doing, no matter how icky those religious choices might otherwise be, is if the religion itself precludes free will and engenders abuse. Again, we don’t know–although the trial of Warren Jeffs and the tales of “lost boys” don’t instill much optimism. Not that any 19th c. No-Mo folks felt much optimism about the lives of my spunky, smart, strong-willed and resilient polygamist great grandmas.
So yup, cognitive dissonance. But not on everything. I loathe that the media keeps focusing on the purported victims–women and children–in a way they would never do with the alleged victims of rape and domestic abuse who hailed from mainstream culture. It smacks of hypocrisy when we talk about protecting them (although it also drums up sympathy, so there’s so more confusion). I loathe that much of the action taken to “protect” the kids and very young women seems to replicate the abuse from which they’re being allegedly protected.
Mostly though, I admit my ignorance and I admit my ambivalence. This post isn’t meant to announce any truth of its own so much as to locate the shifting ground between rocks and hard places. I’m interested to hear what the readers think: how can we adjudicate reliable narratives? When does a religion’s edicts truly start to preclude free will? Can feminists defend a polygamist woman’s choice to live plural marriage and submit to the edicts of her husband even though we may find those choices really, really icky? And considering that rock/hard place ground mainstream Mormon feminists already inhabit, how do we choice with integrity? I mean, I’d like to see all of those women choose a different path, but forcing my desire upon them is no more “feminist” than tacitly condoning the choice to abdicate one’s responsibility for one’s own soul.
So have at it, sisters and brothers, how does a Mormon feminist approach the Texas raid?
______________________________________
Guy Murray has a good post over at The Messenger and Advocate which takes on some of the legal issues. He’s also linked a few other ‘nacle write-ups, and I’m currently feeling too sick to post them all, so if you want a more comprehensive read go to Guy’s post and follow the trail. Peace.
For me, one problem is that whatever standard you allow society to use to judge these people, is the same tool you’d let them use to judge your own ancestors (if they were the *ahem* “good” pre-Manifesto polygamists, who were just following commandments).
I have no love for the Texas CPS. I have friends who work for CPS today and have worked for CPS in the past. They are disgusted by the whole affair — from both sides. The CPS people I know are frustrated, because (a) they are following their protocol to the letter and (b) still come off as being heavy-handed.
I want to think that this is all a good thing, because polygamy is “clearly” a mainstream LDS commandment anymore, and these people are wrong.
Yet, if not for ancestors who decided to follow the prophet and dissolve their families … I might have been born into one of these families…
I’ve heard a lot of ex-FLDS — who were kicked out and have no reason to lie — say that the beds were for the caretakers. I don’t know how much to believe them, except that no one has uncovered evidence to the contrary.
Realize that the Baptists in Eldorado are driving a lot of this. As disgusted as you may be by the FLDS, the Baptist Church in some of these small towns runs everything and twists it to their advantage.
Comment by queuno — April 15, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
(And what’s worse - growing up in an FLDS home or growing up in a foster situation under the care of the CPS? That’s not as easy a question as some might automatically assume.)
Comment by queuno — April 15, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Well, I’m not a Mormon, and I don’t really like the Amish belief system much. Maybe that’s why I find the handwringing over this rather appalling. While I don’t care much about polygamy either way, we’re not talking about the decisions of “women” when there are 14-year-olds involved.
Comment by Kati — April 15, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
I wondered about the sex in the temple thing - that is a common claim I heard my entire childhood from the anti-Mormons, that Mormons had sex in the temple, so when it’s an allegation flung at FLDS, I wonder if there is any evidence or if it’s just a common anti-Mormon rumour expanded to iclude the FLDS.
Still, there is significant evidence that very young women are forced to marry, often much-older men, and that is a practice that needs to stop, as is the practice of creating “lost boys”.
Comment by Quimby — April 15, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
I am also torn. The thing that really bothers me is that there seems no choice for the women on marriage in the FLDS. This is contrary to everything I believe in as an active LDS.
I think I will wait for actual evidence to come out before I decide what I think.
I also agree with queno on not being sure whats worse. Foster care or FLDS compound. I suspect that both will result in pregnant teenagers
the custody hearings will be very very interesting
.
Comment by bbell — April 15, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
I also think it’s wrong to tear families apart because hunches. Hopefully, the man marrying young teenagers was an isolated incidence and not a wide spread problem. I think the CPS should have investigated more before taking away all the children.
As far as polygamy goes, it’s not practiced in our church today. However, “God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow”. So, it’s an eternal law. We just don’t practice it now because it’s against the laws of the land. I believe very strongly, we will someday be asked to live it again someday. Perhaps, in the celestial kingdom???
Comment by Steph — April 15, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
I imagine there is wide variety within both experiences.
I have big questions about the capability of any foster care system to absorb such a large number of children at once. My husband and I (foster parents) almost immediately expressed mutual gratitude that we are not in the vicinity of the FLDS settlement or anywhere in Texas. We imagine we would have a couple of kids sleeping on the couch. And that’s not kosher. But when you’re called to care for a child who has been in danger it can be very difficult to say no.
Having met many foster parents in the last year and a half since we’ve been doing this, I cringe at the implications that foster=bad. There are amazing people in this system taking care of the kids that no one else will bring home. (Not placing myself among them, by the way. We just have a couple of sweet, relatively unhurt little kids from pretty simple situations.)
Having obtained a little experience with what it takes to remove kids from their biological families in a modern CPS system, I tend to believe that probably there was a good reason, and probably it was done in a dramatic way because there was cause to believe that a gentler approach placed the children in more danger. Detaining a child, at least in California, requires repeated documentation of abuse or neglect. You can’t just do it on a whim. And sometimes if there’s warning of a pending detention, there’s a flight risk. So a midnight raid might actually be the safest for the kids.
I’m guessing that if any of us had to choose between a single pelvic exam at age 7 (just chosen arbitrarily there) and forced marriage at 13 that enslaved us for our whole lives, we’d choose the exam.
What’s a pity to me is that they couldn’t relocate the mothers and children together to shelters for abused women and children. But I am quite sure there is not capacity in that system for all the counseling that would be needed to get those families re-started independent of their polygamous husbands and fathers.
Comment by Ana — April 15, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
For me, this issue has nothing to do with eternity, or polygamy, or religion. It has to do with protecting kids who are in danger, who are being manipulated and abused, who are being forced into sexual relationships when they are underage. All the media focus and public outcry about persecution strikes me as irrelevant. Preventing further abuse and discovering current abuse is the #1 priority– all smoke-screens aside.
Comment by Cassie — April 15, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Kati–I’m completely with you if and when we hear the proof that 14 years old are involved. It’s happened in the FLDS past and I’m inclined to believe it may still happen in the present, but so far the authorities have yet to produce any such child-women.
There’s also something a wee bit ethnocentric about imposing our ideas regarding childhood on all cultures, but 14 seems pretty darn young anywhere and certainly in the States. The people I know from cultures where marriage might happen at ages too young for my stomach also seem to involve treating the females as adults in every area rather than *just* expecting them to submit to sex and assume the role of motherhood while still children in every other way. If the allegations regarding the FLDS are true, I suppose that might be the key difference between them and other polygamist cultures where people marry young.
Comment by Janet — April 15, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Janet,
Thank you for capturing what to me seems like a complex situation that doesn’t have easy answers. I, too, am torn. I never think I have enough information from the media, either, to really make informed choices or even to form informed opinions. It’s a mess no matter how you slice it.
Comment by m&m — April 15, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
Ana–I think you peg it with your last 2 paragraphs. Although apparently the women were given a choice to relocate to shelters or go back home . . .but either way they couldn’t see their kids. They couldn’t go to shelters together, which seems quite sad to me. If the authorities truly have hard and fast proof of widespread abuse in which the adult women were willing contributers, then fine. I get it. But so far no proof has appeared in the stuff I’m reading–just allegations from a “confidential informant inside the compound” who the authorities cannot now locate.
Cassie–of course protecting kids should be #1. Totally with you there. But allegations of persecution aren’t irrelevant if the state acting without due cause. Part of my concern lies with the fact that the methods Texas seems to be using to locate abuse could, in and of itself, constitute abuse UNLESS they really have an enormous quantity of proof. If they’ve got the proof, I’m tempted to offer my own house for foster care (although I’m a bit far from TX).
BTW, if somebody HAS encountered reports of hard evidence of systemic abuse rather than an isolated incident, please share. We’re getting over two weeks of sickness here and I haven’t had time to read everything. THanks!
Comment by Janet — April 15, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
Having had some experience with CPS in California (a friend’s husband allegedly molested one of their children and the State concluded that the mother must have known and failed to protect, thus CPS went into the school, took the child into custody and, though my friend was the non offending parent, it took three months for her to get her child back AND she only got the child back because she filed for divorce and left her husband), it it sometimes impossible to prove a negative. And that’s exactly what CPS usually does– takes the child first, then the parents are left with the interesting and sometimes impossible task of proving they didn’t do anything. It actually flies in the face of due process and innocent until proven guilty. Still, it’s a tough call. If a child is in iminent danger, you gotta protect the kids first.
In this instance, I believe CPS is probably right, although I do believe that the mothers should be allowed to stay with their children. However, if the mothers are part of the problem (i.e. consenting to their children marrying at a young age, bringing up their sons to be future husbands to child brides), then how do you allow that? Religious freedom does not trump laws aimed at protecting children. Under the guise of religion, you can’t abuse kids.
Do I believe in polygamy, either here or on the eternities? Heck no! (I’d actually like to use a much stronger word than Heck but I’ll refrain) Do I believe the FLDS are a cult? Of course! Do most of the adults REALLY have a choice if they’ve been cut off from anyone who thinks differently and is taught from the cradle to believe a certain way? Gosh, no. If one is not really chosing, but is in reality, indoctrinated into such a lifestyle, is that right or fair? NO. If someone, of their own volition and their own conscience decides to choose that lifestyle without fear of punishment, banishment, or injury, should they be allowed? Well, it’s illegal to practice polygamy but I’d be much more willing to say “to each their own.”
I’ve read enough books on the FLDS and seen enough interviews on Oprah and the like to have formed a strong opinion that these women, children, and boy are being abused for the most part. Carolyn Jessop’s book Escape was haunting. Are there some who, if given a real choice, would choose polygamy? Sure. But protecting innocent kids from a cult, I believe, is the right thing to do. It just might not be possible to protect those kids when their moms are half the problem (though they, too, are victims themselves). At some point, you have to break the cycle and that first attempt can be messy and ugly and heartbreaking. My heart bleeds for them all.
Comment by Lulubelle — April 15, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
I also read Carolyn Jessop’s book and a couple other memiors from polygamist wives as well. This situation reminds me of the Short Creek Raid that happened to FLDS in Arizona in the 1950s. It completely backfired. The raid made FLDS more extreme, hated ousiders more, and listened to their leaders with new enthusiasm. Since then AZ and UT have be very careful (too careful) in dealing with the issue.
I hope this time it turns out differently.
Comment by Cher — April 15, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
This is an interesting follow up:
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8835442
Comment by Cher — April 15, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
Yes, there ARE women out there who choose polygamy, completely of their own free will (although for most of us this is inconceivable). I know this because my mother chose to be one. She was young, divorced, incredibly insecure and incredibly desperate to belong to something… anything, I think. I was raised by my father in a seperate country (for which I am eternally grateful:) but was able to visit with my mother and her new family a couple of times in my childhood and later as a youth. These people were so very different to anything I was used to, but they are good people. They work hard, look after each other, and try to teach good values to their children. However, something I could not help but notice was the way in which they, like so many other polygamist groups in this country, feel it necessary to completely isolate themselves from the world,and this, in my mind, is very dangerous. When you have no one governing your actions but the ‘patriachs’ of a small group of people, there is bound to be corruption, despite their good intentions. When children are taught that the outside world is evil and out to get you, this drastically affects the way they think and forces them, in a sense, to remain loyal and obedient more out of fear than anything else. I later found out that a couple of children in my mothers group were abused, but by another older child that was tending to them - something that I think would not have been as likely to happen if not for their determination to remain so isolated and self-sufficient. These people did not force girls to marry, especially not young girls, and a few kids did grow up and leave and were not prevented from doing so, but it is hard for me not to see this kind of upbringing as something akin to brainwashing - how much choice to they really have if they are so afraid of the outside world?
No matter how many of these people have good intentions, there is no way to live in a group like that and keep abuse and manipulation out. Just my oppinion
Comment by pom — April 15, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
I want to stress that I don’t in any way support the FLDS church or its stance. I was just reading my #1/#2 and I don’t want to anyone to misconstrue my statements.
I do think that there’s some pollyannish thinking about “oh, the kids are now safe - they’re free”. No, they’re not. They’re now in the CPS system. That’s tragic and horrifying. You could make a very legitimate argument that it’s better to live in a polygamous family than to now be thrust into the CPS system (and there’s no way in h*ll that they will be placed with LDS families, by the way).
Forced marriage and abuse *are* horrifying, and that needs to be stopped. But for those children who are *NOT* abused and *NOT* forced to marry - they were probably better off before than they are now.
I’m just wondering if this was the best way to accomplish this. I have a renewed sympathy for the Utah state government and how they have handled (or not handled) this. Anyone else see a parallel between CPS/FLDS and US/Iraq? In the effort to “fix” something, did CPS make something worse?
Again, I’m not defending FLDS. But I wouldn’t want the government invading my temple, either.
Comment by queuno — April 15, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
Queuno–I know. Can you imagine how an already vastly overburdened CPS system will handle this? All the good intentions on the planet will not make any transition pain free for the kids. Unless there was indeed systemic abuse, I’d have favored removal of at-risk kids. Even if they are all at risk, well, they’re going to continue to be at risk . . . just in different ways. Thank goodness for good foster families, especially ones willing to take on siblings.
Comment by Janet — April 15, 2008 @ 6:33 pm
Let me put it this way. One our best friends was a CPS caseworker for several years (we know others as well, but not as close at this one woman). For years, we heard about how horrible her job was and the children and cases she dealt with.
Finally, she had enough. She quit, took her MS degree and got a teaching certificate, and now teaches special education sources for an urban, North Texas school district with lots of problems. NO ONE wants to teach in this particular school district. It redefines urban flight… Yet, she was willing to leave CPS to teach in a special ed in this school system. Oh … and she got a huge raise to do so.
CPS is a vast, sucking, hole of despair. And it’s not like the kids are going to an economically advantaged area. They are in the process of being condemned to a childhood misery without any family or religious ties.
I don’t think they’ve found the 16-year-old caller yet, if she exists (but there’s the other side of this coin — what was CPS supposed to *do*, given that phone call?).
Comment by queuno — April 15, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
My heart is heavy over this entire travesty. When I think of my DH’s paternal great-great-grandparents (who practiced plural marriage) and that their children could be torn from them, it makes me want to cry out for the innocents.
There is a “Free the Innocent FLDS” petition on-line. It states:
We, the undersigned, urge Texan authorities to free the innocent women, children, and other members of the Fundamentalist LDS Church who are currently being detained. We demand that the Constitutional rights of the innocent be preserved, and that due process be served. As individuals are innocent until proven guilty, we call upon the Texas Governor to intervene in this matter and allow the women and children to return to their homes peacefully. We also demand an apology, most especially from the Texas CPS, for the heinous acts of aggression displayed in these recent events.
I would post the link to the petition, but I do not know if that is permitted here at fMh. If it is, please let me know.
Comment by Kalola — April 15, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
A college class I took on women’s health defined oppression as “not having a choice.” Can feminists support a woman’s choice to be in a plural marriage? Yes, if the woman is truly making a choice of her own freewill. Being able to make a choice means that women in plural marriages can leave whenever they want without fearing for their physical, emotional, or spiritual well-being. They shouldn’t need to ask permission to leave from anyone and they should never feel threatened.
I think some plural marriages involve this type of freewill. All parties can walk away if they decide that lifestyle isn’t right for them. However, I think many plural marriages are oppressive - and from what I’ve heard the FLDS marriages fit into this category.
Now when it comes to the children who are born into these marriages, the situation gets more complicated. Obviously no child should grow up in an abusive environment. So the question is, even if we could support a woman’s choice to be in a plural marriage, could we support her choice to expose her children that lifestyle? I couldn’t.
Comment by sunlize — April 15, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
I hate polygamy because of how it automatically degrades women (you cannot have an equal partnership in a marriage when it takes at least 2 women to equal a man). However, if it’s done by consenting, non-brainwashed adults with other options open to them AND who take care of ALL their own offspring decently, then it’s not really my business.
However, just for the sake of arguement, let’s pretend that all the sick and horrible accusations of rape, abuse, incest, and sex in the temple are true (I think some of them MAY be true, but I doubt all of them are). Here’s my question: why is it that no men are being held for questioning? Kids are being kept, some apart from their mothers, women have reported that they are being urged to go into shelters, but no men are being kept for questioning. Excuse me, but what’s wrong with this picture here?
Yes, it’s quite possible that if underage marriage and rape are going on that the women are enabling the men to do this. But still, that does not mean that the men should be allowed to go free while the victims and possible accomplices are not.
And yeah, I have issues with the Baptist thing. I don’t want to have religious prejudices, but so very often it’s the born-again types who are abusive and prejudiced against Mormons. It’s far less often that Catholics, Budhists, Muslims, or Jews are the ones publicly denouncing Mormons. Think about who’s usually down near Temple Square shouting at Conference goers. It’s not the Hindus, generally speaking.
True, FLDS doesn’t equal LDS. But that’s mostly in our own eyes. The rest of the world can’t tell us apart much of the time, any more than many of us can keep straight all the differences between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Muslims. (Honestly, the only difference I remember — to my embarrassment — is that the non-fundamentalists don’t approve of suicide bombings.)
Yeah, this is a rant. But can anyone offer a good reason why the polygamist men are not being kept for questioning when the kids are? If the Texans pushed out a search warrant for the whole frickin’ compound because of one phone call, then why can’t they manage to get legal authority to DNA test the whole group of men so they can find out who fathered which kid with which child bride? Surely a DNA test is less invasive than searching a compound.
Comment by apaperbackwriter — April 15, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
This has really been weirding me out as well. My heart goes out to those children–so isolated for all of their lives and then thrust into an unknown situation. I can’t imagine how terrified I would have been as a child to go through the same thing. My heart also goes out to the mothers. The thought of having someone come in and rip my child from my arms just makes me ill–especially considering that the vast majority of these women probably firmly believe they’ve been doing the right thing by their children and feel that the CPS’s intervention was unfounded. And yet as so many have said–if that anonymous call was valid, what else were they supposed to do? It is indeed icky.
Comment by Lessie — April 15, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
In my opinion, polygamy is a system created by men for the benefit of men. It exploits women, children, and inconvenient extra men who don’t have wives because others have so many.
Women raised in the system have most likely been brainwashed, and should be given an option to leave if they so desire.
Children under 16 forced to marry - that is abuse, and the state should intervene.
Comment by jame — April 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
“Women raised in the system have most likely been brainwashed, and should be given an option to leave if they so desire.”
Yes, but if they have, in fact, been brainwashed, would they want to leave? They most likely revere their prophet and church leaders in a similar way to us, except wit ha lot more fear involved - they may truly believe that they would be putting their souls in eternal perril for even thinking of leaving. As mormons, we understand the teaching that life isn’t supposed to be easy, that through struggle Heavenly Father often tests us and allows us to grow - imagine how they might apply this principle to their own struggles that come with this lifestyle in thinking it is inspired.
This is the very reason these groups have survived for so many generations - those in power hold the key to the hearts of their followers in exploiting their fears and belief in God for their own gain. It is sick, but I don’t see a way out of it - especially because anything that is done to forcefully break them apart will probably only make them cling to their lifestyle more - thinking themselves martyrs for the cause. kwim?
Comment by pom — April 15, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
The worst part of it for me is that even though reportedly authorities have known for a long time about how these polygamists groups would drop off boys in the big city to fend for themselves (the whole “Lost Boys” thing), nothing was done until a girl (or alleged girl - I hadn’t heard that accusation) called in. Do we think that boys do not need protection? That seems to me to be more abusive than clothing, feeding, and providing housing for young women.
But yes, the age thing bothers me greatly, but I agree with Janet, that it does seem ethnocentric to judge another society based on our own.
Comment by TAG — April 15, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
I definitely feel that TX has overreached in this situation. No question that people’s rights have been trampled. And I have a lot of respect for how UT and AZ have historically handled the situation.
But I for one would not shed a single tear if the end of polygamy is the outcome of this action. I am thrilled polygamy was ended by the LDS in 1890. And a religion that encourages illegal behavior is harmful and creates a need for secrecy.
However, there are issues wih prosecuting polygamy that make it difficult:
1 - consensual polygamous marriages are not legal; therefore, being in a polygamous marriage is not illegal because you’re only married to one person legally. It’s not illegal in this country to have consensual unmarried sex and children with many partners.
2 - you can and should prosecute for any instance of statutory rape.
3 - you can and should prosecute when the welfare system is being defrauded.
4 - you can and should prosecute when any instance of abuse occurs. However, taking over 400 children from their mothers over one complaint is overreaching. As a contrast, there are recurring complaints of domestic abuse in some urban low income commuties, but they don’t come in and take away all the children in all the neighboring apartments. And they would probably find a lot more abuse if they did.
Is the FLDS more of a “cult” than Amish? Tough question. Amish baptize at age 18 after allowing kids the choice to go out into the world to see what it’s all about and choose for themselves, but being Amish is what they know and where their friends and family are. Last I checked, they had over 95% retention rates. I do not consider the Amish a cult, though.
Other changes to the laws might help, too:
1 - raise the legal marriage age to 18 nationally, no exceptions. 18 is still too young if you ask me.
2 - eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).
And lastly, if this does mean the end of polygamy (because it is being attacked directly for the first time), take the following steps:
1 - grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships. This requires monitoring.
2 - prosecute for every instance of the above-mentioned things: abuse, statutory rape, and welfare fraud.
Comment by hawkgrrrl — April 15, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
I don’t have any answers on this, just some personal observations/background to support the way I feel
I grew up in a patriarchal Utah LDS family, one in which my father ruled because he had the priesthood - that was his justification for beating my mother and physically abusing me and my sisters. When I was 10, my school teacher called DCFS to report bruises and welts she discovered on my body. At that time, I did not believe that I was an abused child. I thought that all children were disciplined with belts, wooden spoons, etc. My teacher, me and the principal were called in to meet with DCFS in the principal’s office. I was TERRIFIED. DCFS proceeded to tell me that they were going to take me and my four sisters into custody and place us with different families. I tried my best to come up with stories and lies so that they would not take me away from my family. When school let out, I found 2 of my sisters, and we ran home. When we got home, we found that DCFS has spoken with my mother and given her the option of taking us all to a shelter and leaving my dad OR she could stay and they would place us in foster care. Long story short, we went to the shelter and they got a divorce. To this day, I don’t remember what the bruises felt like, but I do remember the sick, horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach, and for me that has left more of an impression than the abuse. The abuse was wrong, but when it is all that you know, and you love your parents with all of the innocence that a 10 year old has, the option of going to foster care is far more terrifying and traumatic than staying in the situation. For me I believe that going to foster care would have caused far more long term damage that staying in a dysfunctional family.
The story doesn’t end there, however, my mother remarried, and I was molested by my step-father who proceeded to tell me that God had told him that polygamy was coming back and that I was to be his second wife - that was his justification for doing what he did - sick, I know. Although I knew the molestation was wrong, I kept my mouth shut for 15 years because there was no way in H*LL that I wanted to be taken from my family, and I had already had one traumatic experience with DCFS. In a way, it is their fault I didn’t say anything.
I don’t agree with the FLDS at all, but I do understand what it’s like to be a child who feels terrorized by DCFS, and I also understand why these children might lie and do anything they can to stay with their mothers. We may view them as brainwashed and incapable of making rational decisions, however, these children love their parents, and IMO the trama inflicted by DCFS and the foster care system will be far worse than allowing them to stay with their mothers. FWIW I do think these children are far better off in the FLDS culture than other cultures that they could have been born into.
As adult feminist women, there is no good way to approach this situation, and there are no easy answers. I guess for me, I have only been able to look at the situation from a child’s perspective, and feel in my heart of hearts that what is happening to the children is wrong.
Comment by anon — April 15, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
I’m not Mormon. I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I am a feminist. Here is the core problem I have with the Texas raids on YFZ: it seems to me that Texas may have been the butt of a hoax caller, and based on this, entire families on the YFZ “compound” have been torn apart. If I put a border around certain neighborhoods in my Pacific Northwest city, and the police raided all those homes, they would find a lot of households headed by women, any many, many mothers that are 17 and younger with multiple children.
I think Warren Jeffs and a lot of his select “elders” are a bunch of creeps. I think many FLDS men are using polygamy as an excuse for being dirty old men tired of sleeping with the same wife. But wouldn’t it be cheaper for the state of Texas to round up the dudes, who after all, would be the ones that had either messed with young girls or given up daughters to be messed with?
FLDS should move into any city, buy up a bunch of homes, call it “hooking up” instead of being “sealed together”, wear clothes that “blend” a little better with the rest of the town, and they won’t be bothered any more.
It comes down to fundamentals: 1) if these men can support all their baby mamas and children, then it’s their business, not mine. If they’re on food stamps and welfare, it IS my business. 2) If they’re children are not being molested or starved, then it’s not my business.
3) If the children are being educated enough to meet state standards and their rights as US Citizens are not being violated, it is not my business.
I think Texas should have offered the community a deal: The women and children can go back to their homes, and the MEN should be removed until it can be determined if the incident that created this storm has been proven. And I think that every piece of evidence against these folks should be disregarded if it turns out that this 16 year old girl doesn’t materialize.
Heck, yeah, I think the girls should have the opportunity to meet and fall in love with an age appropriate boy. Heck yeah, I think 18 is too young to get married. Heck, yeah I think the FLDS women need tweezers, a stint on “What Not to Wear” and a hair-do that doesn’t involve a braid. But guess what? It’s not a crime to be different!
It makes me heartsick to think what those women and their children must be going through!
Comment by cherinpdx — April 15, 2008 @ 9:17 pm
I would TOTALLY watch this episode of What Not to Wear! Stacy and Clinton, are you listening??
Comment by hawkgrrrl — April 15, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
cherinpdx, you rock. Smart and humorous. Do stick around!
hawkgrrl–yeah, the Amish tradition of sending kids out into the world before they can commit to the faith is deeply cool (I forget the name of it, but I saw a really interesting documentary about the practice). It’s also substantially different from FLDS practices, Funny, I would *never ever* reference the Amish as a cult, but the FLDS? probably. With sympathy and even empathy, but I still would. (Mormonism was featured at my high school when we learned about cults, but that’s another story).
anon–Thank you for sharing your story with us. I am deeply, deeply sorry for what happened to you. You sound like a strong person who uses her experience to help others. My heart goes out to you.
Comment by Janet — April 15, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
Having grown up not far from the twin cities involved in the “Shortcreek” raid of the 50s, I’ve interacted on a personal level with many in the FLDS church and some who have lived on the fringes. Two of my favorite high school teachers “escaped” from the FLDS community in Arizona. There were continually tales of rampant alcohol and sexual abuse - and girls were considered “of marrying age” in their early teens.
They did, until about a decade ago, have a public school, to which they sent their children until the 8th grade. Then, Warren Jeffs became the leader, he cracked down and they protested having “outsiders” as teachers. The district had no choice but to shut the school down, because the community kept their children home.
It made me sick.
But what makes me even more sick is this souped-up, made-for-primetime-news fiasco that Texas is doing - galloping around and making a lot of noise and nonsense.
If they can PROVE abuse is happening (and, I know it is, which is what wrenches my heart), then fine. Take care of it.
But they can’t find the so-called “informant” - so how do they justify the removal of 400+ children into an already over burdened child welfare system with little proof of abuse (especially when the kids won’t cooperate)? Why were the women, supposedly the other victims in this, torn from their children?
And where are the men?
I can’t watch any of it. It makes me angry and sick and furious - at the hold these isolated communities have on their members, at the arrogance of the Texas authorities - bringing in the calvary to show what they can do, at the sad faces of those women and children, who want nothing more than to be together.
Believe me, even after all I’ve heard and seen about the FLDS, those women and children, as a collective majority, were much better off before the raid.
Comment by Sara — April 15, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
#15 said “…feel it necessary to completely isolate themselves from the world,and this, in my mind, is very dangerous. When you have no one governing your actions but the ‘patriachs’ of a small group of people, there is bound to be corruption, despite their good intentions. When children are taught that the outside world is evil and out to get you, this drastically affects the way they think and forces them, in a sense, to remain loyal and obedient more out of fear than anything else….t is hard for me not to see this kind of upbringing as something akin to brainwashing - how much choice do they really have if they are so afraid of the outside world?”
Seriously, this is exactly what people often cite as the reason the LDS church is cult-like…I know most here would not agree with that obviously, but - if you want a window into some peoples view of the LDS church, there it is. How you see them, they (often) see us…
Comment by veritas — April 15, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
I am tired, so I apologize if this is incoherent or rambly.
Having heard several stories already of CPS here in TX (and I’ve only been here 9 months), I’m inclined to believe the whole thing was a set up by CPS or some prankster and CPS willingly played into it.
It will take a whole lot of lawyer wrangling for most of those kids to ever see their parents again. And while I see FLDS as a cult, it was one that people do leave, quite regularly. I’m inclined to believe that these kids are not abused any more than some normal kids are, but because they were isolated, gov’t is more suspicious.
In general, why is it that the parents have to prove to the gov’t that they have the best interests of the child in mind? Why is it assumed the gov’t has the best interests of the kids in mind and isn’t using them as pawns in some sort of political brouhaha?
I have a teacher friend who has reported obvious signs of abuse to CPS and it was not ever dealt with. Apparently, obvious signs of regular beatings seen by teachers (and comments made by the kids) aren’t enough to help a kid. But I know of several families where all the kids were taken away, and the reasons given were something to the effect “the family homeschools, has multiple children & mom just had a baby, so the kids are at risk.” (how reported? angry nurse at the hospital when mom asked to hold her newborn, the newborn had been whisked off to nicu (mom didn’t know this) and when they wouldn’t let her see her baby, she made a fuss. So instead of explaining this, a nurse reported her as endangering the child). Or the guy who pled no contest to a completely false charge b/c a lawyer told him it was the best way to ever see his kid again, that CPS would fight it for years or he could plead no contest and move on.
I think the FLDS kids should go home. Yes the possibility of rape/child abuse exists, but this is not the way to handle it. At all. This is not parental rights at all. This is - you are different and we are suspicious. This is wrong.
Comment by allyall — April 15, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
Janet,
Thanks for breaking the silence over here. I enjoyed your thoughts. I also thought it interesting that when given the choice to return to the FLDS ranch, or potentially face a new life outside that culture–depending on whether we can actually believe the media reports on this–only a few, between 4 to 6 of the FLDS mothers chose not to return to the FLDS ranch and what is left of their families.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 16, 2008 @ 6:42 am
[…] over at Feminist Mormon Housewives also has a very good post on the West Texas mess. […]
Pingback by Response To Some Thoughts On The FLDS « Messenger and Advocate — April 16, 2008 @ 6:44 am
#30 - It’s called Rumspringa. Amish youth going wild. Also, German Baptists, (a sort-of Amish who drive cars and use other machinery, but wear the little white bonnets) do it, too.
Comment by nesquik405 — April 16, 2008 @ 7:24 am
Hawkgirl–gotta agree with you on there needing to be oversight when it comes to homeschooling, but that’s in general–not specific to the FLDS.
I’d agree that the FLDS is a cult, but I really don’t think this over reaction by CPS is going to do them any good.
Comment by kristine N — April 16, 2008 @ 11:00 am
The Washington Post is hosting a chat with Carolyn Jessop who escaped the FLDS group and has written a book (here’s the link for the archived chat).
One of the questions someone had I could’ve written, and Jessop’s answer just makes me want to cry:
Atlanta, Ga.: Could you explain the allegation of taking young men, boys, really, off the compound and dropping them off other cities with no money, skills, etc. Is there any explanation offered to the boys when this happens? What ahppends to the boys? Is there any explanation for this other than the old guys don’t want any competition from the young guys?
Carolyn Jessop: This is true. We have an unofficial count right now of 2,000 boys that have been dumped on the streets of cities and told that the prophet has rejected them; they have no place in the kingdom of God and the family never wants to see them again. Basically they are going to hell, there’s no hope for them. They don’t survive very well. Once they’ve been sent away they know they can never come back.
Why do we not care about the boys???
Comment by TAG — April 16, 2008 @ 11:44 am
Thanks for all the thoughts. I’m especially interested at how many of you have known or otherwise had experience with members of the FLDS community–very interesting.
I’ve reinfected myself with the horrific illness of the last two weeks (must sanitize everything in house. With gloves. Grrr.) so I may not be around much, although I hope y’all keep up the conversation.
Guy Murray–I read in today’s paper that all of the women who elected to go to a shelter rather than back to the ranch changed their minds when, upon arriving at the shelter, they were denied access to a telephone and advised they’d still have no opportunity to see their children. They had apparently gone to the shelter because they’d been promised they’d see their kids that way. I really don’t see the removal of any means for these people to communicate with each other or the outside world as justifiable. The women aren’t accused of anything, yet they have had all their cell phones taken away? How is that not a violation of civil liberties? Sure, phones facilitate checking each other’s stories and the whatnot, but no matter how utilitarian it might be for the gov’t to remove communication between the women, how is it legal? Maybe a lawyer can chime in.
And yeah, why don’t we care about the boys? The whole thing, on all sides, just seems tremendously sad.
Comment by Janet — April 16, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
Lands a mercy! I have just been so upset over this here Texas raids. I myself am a staunch feminist and active Mormon but I also am a descendant of Mormon polygamy. My great-great granddaddy, Heber Orson Maxwell O’Donnovan had seven wives, including my great-great grandma, Littlecreek Birdfellow, a Ute Indian. Well I have been blogging on this issue and featured it on my weekly radio show, What Not, What Have You, and Such as That with Sister Dottie S. Dixon, on KRCL 90.9 FM. But you can listen to the pot-cast at:
www.sisterdottie.com.
I hope they give those children back to their mamas. Anybody come after my kids and I might be of a mind to end my vow to be pacifistic!
Love you all sisters!
Sister D.
Comment by Sister Dottie S Dixon — April 16, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Janet, my only thought about the confiscation of the cell phones is that the event(s) which triggered the situation was the phone calls to women’s shelters from a 16 y.o. girl who said she was forced to be a spritual wife for an old man and have sex with him to bear his child, as well as physically abused and beaten. The phone calls were from a cell phone borrowed from another woman at the ranch so to not arouse suspicion in her husband.
Might the confiscation be an attempt to match the call to the phone that the call came from? We haven’t located the girl yet, as everyone loves to point out. But how chilling will it be if it is revealed that one of the wives removed from the ranch owns the phone that was the source of the call. That would indicate that there was no fraudulent call from the outside as some suggest.
Beyond that, I still don’t see how taking someone’s cell phone is a violation of individual civil liberties if the women are given access to land-line phones. A cell phone is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Comment by Bull Moose — April 16, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
Sticking strictly to the evidence we know, the only abuse we can see is wholesale abuse by the State of Texas. I’m not Mormon, but I’m furious at this blatant police state action. Everyone should be furious. See: http://spirituallibertarian.blogspot.com/
Comment by Christian Prophet — April 16, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
Is anyone else seeing parallels to the situation in Iraq? In both cases, really bad stuff was going on in a foreign culture, and people who didn’t understand the culture have come in in the name of rescue, and at least so far, appear to have made things even worse. I’m not at all defending the FLDS male leadership, or even the women who allow their children to be raised in their culture, but it seems to me like there’s some major ego and lack of empathy on the part of the State of Texas (and yes, I am a Texan).
Comment by shelah — April 16, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Bull Moose–good theory regarding the cell phone confiscation. According to today’s Tribune, however, the women are indeed being denied access to land lines. Or at least the ones who went to a shelter were. Seemed pretty odd.
Shelah–ah yes, we do love our ethnocentrism, don’t we
.
Comment by Janet — April 16, 2008 @ 7:20 pm
Janet wrote:
Janet, in the myriad of stories I’ve read, somewhere (and I can’t now remember where–but probably the Deseret News or the Tribune) I read the judge signed an order to confiscate the phones so that the mothers would not have any way to communicate with their children, in order to avoid “witness tampering.” And, supposedly the request came from some of the attorneys who were appointed to represent the children.
Now, for those who sympathize with Texas’ legal position and the actual armed invasion that took place that argument might hold water; however, don’t think for one second that the Texas CPS isn’t trying to persuade, coach, and mold these kids’ testimony to be favorable to the state’s case. There have been media reports about CPS trying to elicit such testimony from the kids to use against the mothers.
Bull Moose:
No, but the right of association with, and the raising of, your children and family is most certainly a fundamental right protected by the First Amendment
Comment by Guy Murray — April 16, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
I don’t know… I really feel like these mothers should be allowed to be with their kids, regardless of whether they were there or not when the raid took place. When you think of a six month child (the youngest of the children removed) and their needs, and the feelings a mother would have not being able to help them, I think you realize the full repercussions of all this. Think how scary and awful it would be for some of those children. Were they really being abused? Or was it just the system was abusive to the community of women and children? To me, the women are just as much victims… even though they are accountable, they truly believed this man was a prophet. It hits too close to home for me not to side mostly on the side of those mothers who can’t be with their kids.
Comment by sare — April 17, 2008 @ 12:15 am
It is because good people like you are not out raged and doing anything that the government thinks it can take children away from their mothers. The FLDS are simple people minding their own buisnesss. If there is abuse going on…why not remove the men and leave the women and children alone? There is a sacred bond between a mother and child and the state of Texas has no right without any proof to tear these children from their mothers. Can you imagine how they are being traumatized right now? There has been no investigation, there has been no trial. Who gives anyone the right to come into their homes and destroy their families? Can you think how you would be devastated if this happened to you? I think this is a gross violation of legal US citizen’s rights.
Comment by Kim — April 17, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Given the FLDS church’s past, I have no doubt that there is rampant abuse going on and I find them disgusting. And yet the whole thing is really, really complex, which is exactly why the states of Utah and Arizona haven’t done anything but prosecute Tom Green since the 1950’s. It’s really hard to come up with a solution when, despite the abuse, the people fight to stay in the situation.
Comment by Firebyrd — April 17, 2008 @ 1:04 am
A sad/sorry mess. The children must be terrified. There has to have been a better way to handle this truly complex situation. Abuse is never right no matter who is involved and the state of Texas will need to answer for their part in the handling of this whole situation. It is all very scary for me to watch and try to sort out the facts as I think both sides are spinning like tops. It saddens me to see how basically decent people have abused the ‘principle’.
Comment by nellyjo — April 17, 2008 @ 1:17 am
I keep hearing about how the women in FLDS have NO choice and are “married” off at 14 or even younger. Much of this is based on the comments of ex-FLDS members. While I have no doubt some abuse happens even some forced marriages of this type, I cannot but conclude that Texas is way over line in the way they are handling this.
I ran across a different take on the FLDS from an ex-FLDS member that I highly recommend. It is at http://kolobiv.blogspot.com/2008/04/beds-and-temples.html and is titled “THESE PEOPLE NEED A VOICE!” I highly recommend it.
Comment by Daniel — April 17, 2008 @ 4:20 am
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/
Ouch.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 17, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Regarding the removal of cell phones- while it has been reported this was to keep the women from coaching their kids- that doesn’t make much sense. Why not just take phones from the children?
And I find it too big a coincidence to swallow that the cell phones were removed the day after FLDS women used them to call reporters and transfer pictures of living conditions at Fort Concho- which also happened after reporters asked if they could speak to any of the women, and CPS agent Meisner told them none of the women were interested in speaking to the media.
Comment by DeputYheadmistress — April 20, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
Well, don’t feel bad. I’m a Texas lawyer who does CPS work and I’m torn.
I honestly don’t know who I trust least, Texas CPS or the FLDS.
Government is supposed to do a balancing act in these type cases. I would say this is more of a knee jerk reaction and not a balancing act.
Comment by Ron in Houston — April 22, 2008 @ 9:58 am
Hi, I’m not a Mormon, or even religious, but I was drawn to your forums by the intelligent and level contributers and commenters.
Janet’s essay truly does cover my questionable feelings on the FLDS.
To be honest, ambivalent hardly begins to describe my confusion in this matter. Since the YFZ raid brought this unknown (to me) modern day philosophy to light, I have spent a lot of time researching women’s varying roles in polygamy and plural marriages. Prior to the YFZ raid, I was under the impression that polygamy is practiced only by a few archaic people in some cult like fashion…but I have since learned that it is far more prevalent than that.
To start at the beginning, I am a mother, first and foremost, and as a mother I am kept awake at night by this case because of two dominating and contrasting factors:
1) Merill Jessop, the “spokesperson” and “prophet” for the YFZ, is the last person I would want around my children. Marrying his own daughters off as adolescents, and allowing someone to cast his own male children out into the streets like yesterday’s garbage is just the tip of the iceberg. The testimony given by his ex-wife Carol Jessop is both haunting and sickening for me. The stories are hard to swallow as a mother - his abuse of his children to keep his wives in line, his method for “breaking” a child (infants!), and stories of horrible mistreatment of his by children by not only Merill, but also of another of his wives (Barbara). If this is what his 72, 93, 106 children (the count always seems to vary) suffered, then by all means rescue them!
2) But rescue them to where? To some group home in Texas where they will have no connection to their own mothers? Where they will be exposed to a world that their own families have worked so hard to protect them from? As a mother who heavily restricts my young child’s access to the internet and TV, I can’t say that I don’t understand the need to protect your child from the world and it’s ills. But putting these kids in these CPS group homes, even if they are isolated from the other kids, cannot be the most appropriate place for them. What will happen to them…will their cases be mired in the traditional bureaucracy that will take years to sort out? And what happens to these children in the meantime? And why can’t they stay with their mothers? Would I want anyone else watching my 3 year old child who does not share my values? Heck No! Taking these children from their mothers has left me with a very sour taste in my mouth.
I really just don’t know what to think. I do not believe that 14 year old girls should be forced into marriage, or that these abuses that Caroline Jessop has described should be allowed to take place; but nor do I believe that every child and mother should be punished.
How will their lives be made better by these actions? I believe that all people should have a choice but where are these children gaining any choices? Their decisions were made for them by someone else when they were at YFZ and their decisions are being made for them now by CPS…how are these children going to learn what a choice is (let alone that they even have a freedom of choice) if they are being given no choice right now by being forcibly taken from their mothers?
The Texas government is handling this very poorly and their decisions lack wisdom, foresight and compassion. As a parent I am very much saddened by the way this is being handled, and by the wrongs done by the FLDS that have led to these events taking place in the first place.
Comment by MrsCate — April 24, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
To 54: a number of comments on this FLDS story have drawn a parallel to another recent action by a Texan we’re all familiar with. Go in with your big guns blazing, rescue the poor oppressed victims, remove the despots…and then what? No plans,
The “cure” may potentially be worse than how things were before.
Comment by Researcher — April 25, 2008 @ 6:24 am