<p>not true. There is no required engagement period. However, in order to be eligible to get into the temple, you need to be a member in good standing–a one year period is usually the minimum for a new member.</p>
<p>The LDS religion does not discourage contact with extended family. This could be something of which the husband is the root cause. The problem with any patriarchal society is that the head can exercise what the religion calls “unrighteous domination.” You really have to be on the look out for “squirrely” Mormon guys (and I say this as a long time member).</p>
<p>One red flag for me would have been a 33 year old marrying a 19 year old.</p>
<p>I think a few here have missed what I’ve bolded in the statement below, from the initial post:</p>
<p>“Dressed in home-sewn, ankle-length dresses with their hair pinned up in braids, some 133 women left the Yearning for Zion Ranch of their own volition along with the children.”</p>
<p>The Deseret Morning News has an interesting spin on the story…</p>
<p>"State treatment in question as FLDS lose custody of kids</p>
<p>SAN ANGELO, Texas — A boy shook his head “no” Tuesday morning when the Deseret Morning News asked if the children taken from an FLDS ranch near here were being treated well.</p>
<p>The boy and seven others were walking the perimeter of a grassy field at the historic Fort Concho, a makeshift shelter where children and women are being guarded by police. Social workers summoned the boys back inside after the boys came within earshot of reporters. Police then moved reporters farther from the protected area."</p>
<p>Check out the photo gallery. The last few pictures include quite a few teenage boys.</p>
<p>Also, interesting that the CPS spokeswoman handling this case is the same woman who was front and center on the Branch Davidian CPS case in 1993.</p>
<p>owlice - The adult women were allowed to accompany the minors (ages infant to 17 years) as a courtesy. The mothers who are minors are in custody along with their children.</p>
You don’t know what was going on in that compound. You are making speculation and presumptions about them probably becuase you don’t like them.</p>
<p>
Show me one post I have written where I said criminal activity should be ignored. I have said quite the opposite. You are creating a straw man and arguing with yourself.</p>
<p>
I try to look at issues logically rather than relying upon emotion. I would encourage others to do likewise.</p>
<p>
Actually, you’re speculating that there is criminal activity going on. The only evidence of possible criminal activity is with respect to one girl, not the hundreds of other children.</p>
<p>
All of these are your presumptions as to what’s occurring but you really have no idea.</p>
<p>
Let me see, now you can read my mind and you know my ideology? </p>
<p>
If the 15-year-old girl can consent to a medical procedure on her body called an abortion, then she can consent to sexual conduct that resulted in the pregnancy she aborts.</p>
<p>
Your personal attack is inappropriate. You owe me an apology.</p>
<p>razorsharp, if you’re so sure only one crime has been possibly been committed (the original 16-year old who called), then how do you explain the many other observations of 14 and 15 year olds with children of their own? It wasn’t immaculate conception.</p>
<p>Whether you agree with a law or not is not germane here.</p>
<p>I don’t know what the law is in Texas, but it’s perfectly possible for the law to allow a 15-year-old girl to consent to a medical procedure on her body, but not allow consent to having sex with a man significantly older than she is. </p>
<p>Doesn’t matter whether you agree with this, remember; what matters is what the law says.</p>
<p>If Texas law doesn’t allow a 14-year-old to consent to marriage, and states that an old man having sex with a 14-year-old is illegal, then forcing a 14-year-old into an (illegal) marriage and having sex with her is illegal.</p>
<p>And if I read the original post correctly, that is what the allegations are.</p>
So you are telling me a 15 year old girl cannot consent to sex but can consent to an abortion? There is no logic to support such a conclusion.</p>
<p>Let’s look at it this way. If an attractive young female teacher asks the 15 year old males in her school whether they wish to have sex with her, I don’t think it would be surprising that many of them would line up for the experience. They would be consenting to sex and like most 15 year old males they are interested in sex. So why is it somehow impossible to think that a 15 year old girl cannot consent to sex? Unfortuntely, our high schools are filled with 15 year old girls consenting to sex. What statutory rape laws do is deem actual consent to be a lack of capacity to give consent. </p>
<p>
What makes you think I am disagreeing with the law? I have said no such thing.</p>
I am not sure only one crime was possibly committed. How can you be so sure over 400 crimes were committed? Wheren’t there 400 people removed from the compound?</p>
<p>
The same way they consent to sex with someone closer to their age. It is a factual issue with respect to the persons involved. Are you saying consent depends on the age of male?</p>
<p>“What makes you think I am disagreeing with the law? I have said no such thing.”</p>
<p>Well, you called the law illogical. I generally disagree with things that are illogical. In my state, a 15-year-old girl can consent to an abortion, but not to sex with a 40-year-old man. If you disagree with that, then you disagree with the law.</p>
<p>In the eyes of the law, it is perfectly possible that a 15-year-old, girl or boy, cannot consent to sex with a 30-year-old. Ages vary by state. I do not know what the law is in Texas. If the LAW says it’s illegal, it’s illegal, whether you like it, whether it’s logical, and regardless of what the law might be regarding abortions, etc.</p>
<p>Female teachers have indeed asked underaged male students to have sex, and have been prosecuted for it. However did the news items about such cases escape you?!</p>
<p>I’m not arguing logic here, and, since we are talking about law, I suggest you stop trying to do so, and talk about LAW instead.</p>
<p>If the LAW says it’s legal for a 14-year-old girl to consent to abortion, but not to consent to sex with a 30-year-old, that’s the LAW, whether you like it or not, and regardless of whether you find it logic or illogical.</p>
<p>(If you don’t like one or both of those laws, you are, of course, welcome to do what is legal to try to change one or both of those laws.)</p>
<p>RS–children are removed from homes on suspicion of crimes against them routinely. See EK’s posts above. Additionally, as explained, many of the youonger children are accompanying their mothers who may have had crimes against them. I guess they could leave the babies there, but my assumption is the mothers would want to take them with them.</p>
No I didn’t. Find my quote saying the law was illogical. The law is the law. I am not advocating changing any laws, I am advocting enforcing the laws prohibiting government interference in private religious activites.</p>
<p>
I am talking about the law. It’s call the constitutional amendment prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures. The Government simply can’t enter your property and force out everyone without probable cause to believe a crime occured. There is no probable cause to believe 400 people were involved in criminal activity.</p>
<p>
And many people were forced out by the State. I am worried about the rights of those who did not wish to be harassed by the government. </p>
<p>BTW, can a 15 year old girl consent to leaving a house of her own volition but not consent to sex?</p>
<p>I never said 400 crimes were committed. Posters on this board have alluded that the state stepped over its bounds because of one phone call from one 16-year old. I will leave it to the authorities to determine how many crimes were committed, but there are obviously many underaged mothers in this compound, so the number of sexual crimes committed is somewhere between 1 and whatever. It has nothing to do with the number of people removed. The same dozen girls could have been raped 100 times by different people, which means there would have been well over 400 crimes committed. </p>
<p>If this were a compound not formed under the guise of religion, let’s say it were formed under the practice of organic living/living green, and this kind of news was coming out of it, authorities would act in the same manner, removing people who are suspected of being abuse victims or potential abuse victims based on what they authorities found when they got there. This is not about religion; it’s about criminal men (only men have control in this compound) who brainwash women into believing their criminal activities are dictated by God. If that’s true, maybe I can start a small side-business of growing pot out in the plains of Nebraska somewhere, and when I get caught, try to explain to everyone that God ordained me to do so,and also ordained me manipulate and brainwash hundreds of other people to help me do my work because they would fall in God’s favor. Somehow I don’t think it would fly, but hey, I could give it a try anyway.</p>
<p>Well, unless her town has an enforceable curfew, it’s not illegal for her to do so, and it’s an activity she can do alone, without harming others. But sexual activity does require consent (even if they’re both 15), and our laws have been written such that, even though they can consent, it doesn’t make it illegal. A kid can consent to smoking a joint their parent gives them, but it doesn’t make it legal.</p>
<p>15 year old girls can of course consent to sex, with someone close to her age…the POINT HERE IS THIS, in case you missed it the first dozen times</p>
<p>this is NOT about concensual sex, it is about older men having sex with young girls under the guise of religion and I can guarantee you that few, if any, of those girls consents…they may have not fought back violently, they may have done it because they had no choice, because it is what was “expected” it was what they were taught since a very young age that it was expected they would mae babies for elders in the church</p>
<p>Consent is a very powerful word, and you can’t concent if you are coerced, feel threatened, have no other choice, have no recourse, can’t escape, etc. </p>
<p>If you have been taught that a certain behavior is expected and that if you don’t do it you will go to hell, be banished, or worse, do you consider that a minor child is concenting when they go along with that behavior and “agree” to it? </p>
<p>This is not consenual sex, and if you think it is, that is darn scary</p>
<p>And it doesn’t matter if the boys line up to have sex, it is illegal</p>
<p>I suggest to go read some Nambla literature, you seem to think along their lines</p>