walkitout (walkitout) wrote,

FLDS, LDS and race prejudice, prosecutorial differences TX v. UT/AZ


The gist of the article is that some people are complaining that foster care in Texas for FLDS children has been hearing from people like Carolyn Jessop. As usual, William John Walsh (here identified as John Walsh) is quoted without any particular analysis of the kind of crap that comes out of his mouth on a regular basis (note to mainstream LDS: better excommunicate this guy quick! He's _really_ gonna make life tough for you, trying to keep you separate from FLDS). Foster care is warned to not respond to racially prejudiced and similar offensive remarks, explained in the last paragraph in this way:

"Boys, it says, "have made derogatory remarks to staff of color" and children have made "negative comments concerning women wearing jewelry" and that "men are not clean shaven and are not wearing long-sleeve shirts."
[...clothing explanation deleted...]
Jeffs, drawing on early Mormon teachings that blacks were cursed, has preached that anything to do with black culture, music and dress in particular should be avoided."

At some point, someone is going to point out that the whole blacks-can't-be-priests (which is basically a bar mitzvah for Mormons, so being excluded was a big deal. Oh, and hey? Why was it such a big deal that _blacks_ couldn't be priests -- but women Mormons _still_ can't be priests? Hmmmm?) changed very recently. Like, it was an interview question for Mitt Romney.

1978. Yeah. "early" Mormon teachings. That were still around until 1978. Which was _such_ a long time ago. Lest you go, well, it was that way all along, so it _was_ early, well, _really early_ Mormon practice was to ordain free blacks. Apparently even Brigham Young ordained some blacks. It wasn't until 1848 that the Curse of Cain thing took off.

So that paragraph is wrong in a couple of ways that are overly flattering to regular, LDS Mormons. Which is not to say they don't get credit for getting rid of such an evil doctrine.

As usual, the coverage in the Christian Science Monitor, while infrequent, is excellent.


They describe the little Harry Reid thing and provide the obvious explanation why you can't "raid" Short Creek/Hildale/wtf the way YFZ was raided. YFZ is _one_ property so once you're through that gate legitimately, you can take any kid who is at risk. In a town with multiple properties (even if all held through UEP, they are still separate parcels), you need a report/reason to act _for each property_ -- you can't just go waltzing in to every house in town.

This was obvious to me _without_ a lawyer pointing it out. I'm surprised this is the first time I've seen someone explain it in so many words in media coverage.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.