FLDS - Five Letches Demanding Sex

Finally.

Finally, the day has come when that which needed to happen actually did. Finally, the day has come for some people to be accountable for their actions and to be held responsible for themselves. It's the day when a Texas grand jury indicted the Grand Poobah of the FLDS Church, Warren Jeffs, for first degree sexual abuse of a child. It's also the day when the same grand jury indicted five of Warren Jeffs's minions as well. Four sheeplike followers were each charged with one count of sexually assaulting a girl under the age of 17. One of those four also was charged with one count of bigamy. The fifth sheeplike follower was charged with three counts of failure to report child abuse.

Finally.

Look, it's hard to say whether or not the State of Texas was out of it's mind when the decision was made to remove some 463 children from the YFZ Ranch. (YFZ = Yearning For Zion. Look, if you're going to have some made-up religion which compels you to build a walled off compound, can you at least come up with a name for it that doesn't sound so ridiculous? YFZ hardly rolls of the ol' tongue. But then again, what were the other choices? Polygamyville? Pedophileburbia? Multiplicity? Hey! Multiplicity. I like it!) But I know that they didn't remove the children on a completely unfounded basis. When you have a group of people following the tenets of some made up religion which necessitates the followers to wall themselves off from society (as so to conceal all of the sexing up of young, underage girls by middle aged men, all done under the guise of "religion"), there's obviously something that's not OK that's going on. And the State of Texas knew it. And they acted accordingly. (And remember, this is Texas we're talking about. Thus, "accordingly" will be partially defined by prior incidents involving another walled off, religious sect called the Branch Davidians and a lot of fire.)

When the FLDS children were ordered to be returned to their families, you really could have gotten the impression (from listening to FLDS members speak out about that decision) that they thought that it was over. You really could have gotten the impression that they believed that the State of Texas had absolutely NO evidence of ANY wrongdoing and that everything was going to be just fine and that they would walk away from the situation martyred, but victorious. You really could have gotten that impression if you listened to the Mini Poobah, Willie Jessop, speak. He is apparently the next in line for the fake throne from which to falsely rule the FLDS followers. And he is a pompous Poobah if I've ever heard one.

The names of the five other middle aged men accused of sexing up young girls have not been released yet. That is presumably because they have not been arrested yet. I don't think that they'll be too hard to find. (See the big ranch with the Lincoln Log houses? Try over there. If no one answers, head on over to the concrete factory or the cheese factory. They could be there.) Naturally, when Willie Jessop was informed of the indictments, he replied, "We're actually quite shocked. As soon as we know who they're looking for, we'll try to face it. We believe in our innocence." Yes, that's part of the problem. You don't think that you're doing anything wrong by marrying off 16-year old, 15-year old, and even 14-year old girls to middle aged men. We know you believe in your innocence. But that doesn't mean you're not guilty.

Here are some telling incidents. Several of the FLDS women were summoned by the grand jury earlier in the day Tuesday. After putting on several layers of clothes and topping them off with a pastel prairie frock and poofing their righteous hair higher than the tuft of a quail, they arrived at the courthouse and waited to be called inside. Some went in and came out almost immediately. A sect member named "Ben" told the Houston Chronicle, "They're all taking the fifth." Interesting.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states, basically, that a person has the right to not give testimony or disclose any information which the person reasonably believes could be used against themselves. So, if you have information that is going to incriminate you, you have the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment and not disclose that information. (In the movie, "Born Yesterday" with Melanie Griffith and John Goodman (What a pair.) Melanie Griffith's character puts the Amendments of the Constitution to the tune of "The Twelve Days of Christmas". It goes something like, "The Fifth Am-end-ment to the Con-sti-tu-tion says....Doooonnnnn't RAT on yoursellllllfff!" That pretty much sums it up. Don't rat on yourself.) If the prosecution believes that the person who has invoked their Fifth Amendment rights has information that is compelling enough to the case, the easiest way around this is to offer the person immunity from prosecution if they disclose what they know. No word on whether or not that was the case down in Texas.

So, if the women are refusing to answer questions based upon the "reasonable belief" that their testimony could incriminate themselves, what does that tell you? Well, it doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know, that's for sure. When you don't have anything to hide, you're willing to talk. When you're subpoenaed into a grand jury proceeding and you refuse to talk? That might speak a little bit louder than whatever it is that you're not actually saying.

Oh, but not if you ask Willie Jessop. He had a few things to say about it all. (I'm not sure if this was before he was shocked by the indictments or after he was shocked by the indictments. I do know that I read it after I was not shocked by the indictments.) Willie said, "Our ladies are upset, they've been in the sun all day." And apparently, the teachings of the FLDS church do not include getting OUT of the sun when you're too HOT?! Going INSIDE an air conditioned building that is 2 feet away from you is NOT an option...why? They've been in the sun all day. Spare me. Then get out of the sun! What is wrong with you that you stay out in the sun when you don't have to? May I suggest, perhaps, not donning yourself head to toe in polyester and cotton when it's the middle of July and you're in Texas. THAT might help you tolerate the times when you're "in the sun all day" and don't know what else to do! Spare me.

Willie also piped in that, "The state has spent millions of dollars on this, and now they've got to justify it." Well, he's partially right. They have spent a lot of money, that's true. As far as justifying it, they might be planning on using some of these photos of Warren Jeffs to "justify it". Here's good ol' Uncle Warren and a couple of his child brides. (I think if you click on the photos, they will open in a different window and they'll be larger.) These photos really might help "justify it", Willie. (By the way, not that someone isn't already committing serious thinking errors by engaging in sexual behavior with underage girls under the guise of a made up religion, but what kind of an idiot takes freaking pictures of it?!?! Oh, and not just casual photos, either. Hell, no, you're going down to Olan Mills (or Kiddie Kandids) to have formal pictures taken! How stupid is that? You sir, are a pervert AND a moron. Both are things that really don't surprise anyone.)

So, in reality, Willie, they don't HAVE to justify it. It's ALREADY justified.

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - Finding Little Deceptive Slants

I swear, if I thought that it would be possible for me to cram all of this FLDS stuff into one post, believe me, I would. But there's no way. None. It would just be too freaking long (and I still wouldn't be done!). I like to think that the multiple posts are rather appropriate for this situation. (And as a female, there are plenty of things that come to mind (pun probably intended) that I rather enjoy having in multiples, but spouses would not be one of the things on my "multiples" list. No, I have much better things on my list.) So, onward!

All of the FLDS children have been returned to the walled off, secular, multi-spousal compound down there in Polygamy-ville Eldorado, Texas. And while not everyone ("not everyone" meaning those who aren't living within the walled off, secular, multi-spousal compound) is thrilled that this has occurred, a lot of them seem to think that this is it and it's over and everyone is just supposed to ignore the fact that, despite what the FLDS want to proclaim, there are underage girls having sex with adult males over there. (Oh, but not by "force". Good Lord, you say the word "force" to an FLDS member and they seem to think you said "farce" and then begin speaking accordingly.) Trust me, it's not being ignored. I guess there's a saying that goes something like, "They may have lost the battle, but they won the war." Something like that. The FLDS may be down there feeling like they've won this battle, but in the end? They're going to lose the war.

And I have to think that the FLDS members are a bit nervous that they're going to be held legally accountable for their actions. ("Actions" meaning the having of all the sex with the underage girls by the adult males under the guise of a religious practice under a made up religion.) So what should they do? Correct, they should retaliate in a passive-aggressive manner and while they're at it, they should spew martyred propaganda with inflammatory wording. They should? They are.

Apparently, according to the fine folks over there at the Chicago Tribune, there is a bit of anticipation regarding a mass voter registration by the FLDS. According to the Trib, "Hours after the court first ruled against the state, two members of the sect walked into the county clerk's office and requested 300 voter registration forms, a potentially tide-turning number in a county with 1,800 voters." (The sheriff down there is up for re-election this year, by the way. Gee, I wonder what they could possibly want to vote on. Hmm...) OK, so let me get this straight....because the FLDS members feel "persecuted" and because they will not acknowledge that they brought this whole ordeal upon themselves and because they just want to get back to their simple, simple, oh-so-simple lives, they're going to retaliate by voting in the very society whose laws they ignore and whose people they shun and who they wall themselves off from?! An action that is clearly retaliation and which will have absolutely no bearing on laws and how they apply to them. No, the only thing that will do is, if they were to succeed in booting the sheriff from office, is to allow another sheriff to be elected and follow the same freaking laws that the current sheriff is following. I think it would be a lot easier and definitely not so passive-aggressive if the FLDS members just threw themselves on the ground and had a tantrum, because that's all this amounts to. But that will never happen. (They might get dust on their frocks.)

And I'm not saying that they don't have a right to vote. They absolutely do. But I have an issue with those who have this right and want absolutely nothing to do with the society in which the right is to be exercised and then do so for no other reason than to use it as a weasely "get back".

And now..websites! The FLDS have multiple websites to inform the public of what they want to inform them of (which seems to be how horribly persecuted they have been and how unjust that is because they're such wonderful people living such wonderful lives. I'm sure it will come as a shock to you that there is nothing, nothing, about the underage marriages, the underage sex, etc. Yeah, seem shocked.) Having multiple things seems to be a trend with these people. I don't know if their sing-songy essays can get any more sappy and any more "poor me" sounding. (I say I don't know if they can, but they will. They have been.) Some of their articles include such titles as,

• "Oh, Where Are The Patriots?" (Well, they lost the Super Bowl, so they didn't go to Disneyland, but I'm not sure exactly where they are.)
  
  
• "Tender Thoughts of a Lonely Mother" (Like chicken tenders? Mmm...chicken tenders.)
  
  
• "Finding Peace and Love" (Have you checked with the Patriots?)
  
  
• "I Spent The Day Crying". (That must have been before finding all the peace and all the love.)
  

Those are just the sappy titles. Some of the more inflammatory titles include,

• "FLDS Human Rights Violations are Fraud Reminiscient of KGB" (Um, if you think the State of Texas is "reminiscent" of the KGB, you might want to read that section in your history book again, as the two are really quite different.)
  
  
• "Child "Protection" is BIG Business!" (Yep, there will a "child protection business" on every corner, just like Starbucks! Have your child protected while you sip a latte!)
  
  
• "Parents Being Weighed in the Balance" (No. It's more like, "Parents being investigated for allowing their underage daughters to be put in uncompromising and inescapable sexual situations with adult males" But I guess that title was too long, eh?)
  
  
• "A Modern-Day Inquisition". (OK, look, why are they complaining about everything that is happening as if they are practices from the past? They dress and live like it is 1852!! They should be happy that the perceived persecution of their made up religion and their walled off compound is taking the practices from the days of yore into consideration and implementing some of history's favorites! "The Inquisition! The KGB Tactics! The Gestapo! The Holocaust! All brought back just for this purpose!" They want to live in the past but they want to be treated in the present. Choose a side, folks!)

Once again, I get to about this point and it's clear that these people exhaust me. It's hard to keep up with so many versions of "poor me" being thrown out there. But here's my favorite. From one of the FLDS websites, they have this photo montage of some of the children (they like to refer to them as "captive flds children", which is also the name of their website.). I don't know exactly what it's purpose is other than to illustrate what this whole ordeal has done to them. And when I saw this picture, I was shocked, just shocked, because I had no idea that one of the consequences to being taken off of the YFZ Ranch and put into state custody was that the children would age what seems to be a couple of years over just a couple of months! Amazing! I'm so glad they pointed that out to us. (By the way, I erased the kid's names. I just didn't feel it was necessary to have them on there. You'd think that whoever posted that picture would have thought the same, but they didn't.)

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - Former Leader Dead Since...?

So down yonder there in Eldorado, Texas, the children of the FLDS members are being returned to the YFZ Ranch and to their parents who believe that the fashions of the early 1800s and polygamy are both the way to go. And while not everyone is totally sold on the idea of wearing prairie frocks and living behind a walled off compound with your many, many wives, the FLDS members claim that this is the will of God and that they are just following the rules (most of them that were made up by people who were not God, but they don't mention that part). They also seem to think that society is basically an evil hell and that all of their children were removed from their little self sustaining city (which supports itself on the revenue off of it's concrete and cheese factories. Go figure. Concrete and cheese. The two C's of polygamist economics. Who knew?) for no reason at all. Oh, well, there was a reason. And there was more than one (which is kind of fitting, being as how those folks don't seem to think that anything should be in quantities of "one").

See while it's been known for a while that the FLDS practice polygamy, it's sort of been the underlying current to that (the one that isn't talked about publicly) that the "wives" that the men acquire are sometimes "acquired" when the "wives" are actually still "girls" that are legally unable to give consent. The FLDS members have told anyone who has asked them about this that the girls are not forced and that there is no force and there is only love. (If you listen to them justify their behaviors for more than about 2 minutes, you're going to twist off, I guarantee it.) Well, now there won't be any force and there won't be any love if the girl is not of the legal age to get married without consent. Because the truth has been handed down!

On Monday, the seemingly self appointed spokesperson (and martyr in training) Willie Jessop announced that the FLDS, after almost 10 years of not bowing to pressure from the government and refusing to make any changes to the way that the FLDS practice marriage in their own little made up world, are vowing to abide by the age laws and requirements for marriage in all states. Aw, really? Gee, thanks, Willie! You're announcing publicly that you are promising to follow the law from now on? So, SO generous of you there, Willie. (Admit it. Like me, when you hear "Willie" you think "Groundskeeper".)

So how did they come to this conclusion? The way that the FLDS dealio works when it comes to changing their made up doctrine is that the prophet gets the word from God and then passes it along to his minions. Yeah, and that's all fine and good, but in this instance, their "prophet" is serving a 10 year to life jail sentence in Utah after being found guilty of rape by an accomplice. (Heck of an organization they've got going over there, eh?) So, when asked who authorized the change, Willie said, "Joseph Smith." He also said that he was "unaware" if Warren Jeffs, the imprisoned prophet, had any hand in crafting the statement. Um, Joseph Smith? The founder of the regular LDS Church? Interesting. See, he died about 168 years ago in 1844. And you're saying that he is the one that authorized this reform that just happens to coincide with the children being returned to the YFZ Ranch? So you do know if a guy who has been dead for 168 years authorized the change, but you don't know if a guy who is currently alive is aware of that change? Interesting. So, did Joseph Smith hand deliver your new rules to you personally, Will? Was he riding his unicorn when he stopped by to drop it off?

Let's see what the new rules seem to say, shall we? Ahem...

• The church's policies regarding marriage have been widely misrepresented and misunderstood. Indeed, much of the misinformation circulating on this subject seems designed intentionally to fuel the flames of prejudice against the church.
  
• The church's practices in this regard continue a long tradition of marriage in this country that would have been found to have been unremarkable in 19th century America. In the FLDS church all marriages are consensual. The church insists on appropriate consent, including that of the woman and the man in all circumstances.
  
• Nevertheless the church is clarifying its policy toward marriage. Therefore, in the future, the church commits that it will not preside over the marriage of any woman under the age of legal consent in the jurisdiction in which the marriage takes place. The church will counsel families that they neither request nor consent to any underage marriages. This policy will apply church-wide.

• The church believes in purity, cleanliness, and innocence. Our children and families are the cornerstones of our lives and our religion. We hope that this modest clarification in policy will alleviate recent concerns and allow the church and its families to reside in peace among our neighbors.

Good hell, where do I start? I guess at the beginning ::sigh:: Here we go...

Misinformation circulating? Care to be more specific? I find it interesting that he is proclaiming this is all a result of "misinformation", yet the purpose of his statement isn't to clear up any of the "misunderstandings", it's simply to say that they're changing their rules. OK, if I'M being "misunderstood", I'm not going to cave if it's not a matter of my being wrong, but is a matter of someone else not getting it. And as far as fueling flames of prejudice against the church? I had not given the FLDS two seconds of thought EVER before all of this occurred. There are no "flames" over here. There's not even a Bic Lighter over here. Relax, there Will.

And, yes, I'm sure that the church's practice may have been seen as "unremarkable" in the 19th century. But here's a news flash for you (and you might want to sit down for this one because it's HUGE!): The 19th century was about 200 freaking years ago! Just because you dress like those who settled this fine land (or those who co-starred alongside Michael Landon in "Little House on the Prairie") doesn't mean that it's OK to still maintain and enact what they may have considered an "unremarkable" practice of marriage. Let me tell you what else was seen by some as being "unremarkable" during the 19th century...slavery! That some thought that slavery was "unremarkable" during it's unfortunate time in this country, would that make it OK for you too to have a handful of slaves over there? I would hope not. (Then again, I was hoping not on the multiple wives thing and that didn't go so well.) You're going to need a new justification there, Willie.

Before I go on, I just wanted to point out that one of the detriments to not living within society and then having to attempt to interact with society, especially if you're on the defensive when you're doing so, is that your way of simple, simple life isn't quite as sophisticated as those who are experiencing other aspects of life outside of a secular community. See, when you have day to day exposure to a variety of different people that you are not related to as opposed to the same few hundred people every day, you tend to accumulate more information about, well, about everything, really. Some of us haven't lived our lives being told only one thing over and over and over by the same people. Instead, we've heard a variety of opinions from a variety of sources and have been allowed to decide how we feel about things on our own instead of being told what to feel and how to act. Bottom line: That excuse is lame. I can only assume that you think that the people that you're trying to appease don't see through it. And that little fantasy land seems to work for the purposes that you need it to, so have at it all you'd like. It's a lame excuse.

He basically concludes that the church is going to not encourage it's members to run afoul of society's rules on being married to one spouse and one spouse only, even though it's all about the "misinformation" that the public has received. Um, OK. But here's my favorite part: "We hope that this modest clarification in policy will alleviate recent concerns and allow the church and its families to reside in peace among our neighbors." Translation? "Holy crap. When they find out how many of us have been sexing up young girls who were under age, we could find ourselves on the bitch side of prison polygamists. We'd better try and appease the masses. I know! We'll tell them we changed our mind and the prophet who has been dead for 164 years gave the OK. That should do it! Where's my quill and parchment? I need to start crafting this new "policy" immediately. Now, what should it say? Hmmm...." Or something like that.

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - For Lack (of) Different Styles

Geez, I'm telling you, do a blog post about anything related to the FLDS and Wham! Blog hits out the wazoo! (And if you've ever had anything coming out the wazoo, you know that's a) quite the feat and b) a little surprising.) I would make all of my blog posts about the FLDS if I didn't think it would kill me. Or bore me to death. Now that I've said that, I'm going to mention that just because this post is, once again, about the FLDS, it's not just for hits. Oh, not at all. This post is purely for informative purposes. Informative purposes that are amusing. To most. Not all.

There seems to be a great deal of interest in the FLDS and their hair. I can only assume it is because those of us not living behind a walled off religious compound (ie, the public) have seen images, (such as those below) in the news lately, and have had a response similar to that of Robin Roberts (shown on the left) as she was interviewing three of the women back in April.

Let's see if I can shed some much needed light on this subject.

Here's the scoop: Hair is a prized asset in the FLDS community. The prized asset of the hair is also seen as a symbol of righteousness. The more of the hair, the more righteous the woman is supposed to be. (Or feel. Or be seen. They're not real clear on where the righteousness comes into play.) And we're not just talking about the hair on their head. No, that extends to other aspects of body hair, one of which includes the eyebrows, as sported here by this FLDS member. According to Carolyn Jessop, who managed to escape from under the thumb of this oppressive and controlling sect and subsequently wrote a book detailing her experiences as a female member of the FLDS, the tweezing of the brow IS allowed, but "they just don't do it because they think it's more righteous not to. Primping is seen as being vain." Clearly. There's certainly not any vainness in that picture, that's for sure.

So they're allowed to have long hair and the longer the better. That explains a lot, actually. They're not allowed to have a whole heck of a lot of anything else (except for children and sister-wives) other than the long righteous hair. And if that's all you have to indulge yourself in, well, I suspect you're going to do so. Especially if it's seen as an societal class standing thing (within that secluded society). Women. Always trying to out do the other ones. Some things are the same on either side of a walled off religious compound.

I guess I'm being a little liberal with the term "allowed to have long hair". I could have phrased that as "They're not allowed to cut their hair" and it would mean the same thing. Both sound (and are) weird. And as you'd expect with odd rules to live by such as this one, they also cannot dye their hair or perm it. They CAN, however, use expensive shampoos, conditioning treatments and hair spray. (They must go through an awful lot of hair spray. Every one of them has hair that poofs up in the front. Kind of like a quail.) It's unclear as to why some hair care items/methods are off limits as opposed to others that are accepted. Shocking that the FLDS ways are not all that clear to others, isn't it?

The reason for having the long hair is for Christ. More specifically, for Christ's feet. Right. They believe that they will use their hair to wash Christ's feet during the Second Coming. That is correct. Wait. What? Yes, apparently, they have come to that conclusion from a passage in 1 Corinthians that says, "....if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering." OK, see, I did NOT come to that conclusion from reading that passage. But somehow, they did. Huh. Interesting. What else?

The higher that an FLDS woman's quail poof is, the more righteous they are. Kind of like how some people like to show off their supposed righteousness with cars or clothing or money or even a little skin (but not too much skin. We don't need a bunch of wardrobe malfunctions popping up. Or out.). After all, the Bible says that a woman's hair is to be her crowning glory. And during the 1970s is when the quail poof became more prominent and, for some unknown reason, helped the women feel a little bit more feminine. Or at least a little bit more like Elvis.

Since the hair cannot be cut, it must be managed in some fashion (oh, the irony) and the FLDS women have it down to a science. Once the bangs have grown out (no clue as to what defines "grown out". Maybe when they're the same length as the rest of the hair?), they are rolled. Please don't envision them using a curling iron because that is just way too modern (and normal). I don't know what they actually do use to roll the bangs, but considering that their resources are extremely limited (and the fact that they live behind a walled compound, complete with structures that appear as if they would require a moat), my money is on some sort of wooden implement. (Maybe their rolling pins do double duty. You know, like in the morning they curl their hair with them and all the rest of the live, long day they use them to flatten dough for pies and biscuits.) However they do it, they make something called a "sausage curl" with the side hair and often they will sport a braid down the back. Judging from the picture over here on the right, I'd say that the "sausage curl" was so named because of it's similarity in appearance (not taste or delicious-ness) to (surprise) a sausage.

The women keep their hair up in their mysteriously rolled, sausage like, long haired, dos at all times. The only time when they are "allowed" to "let their hair down" is when they are alone with their husband (presumably on their day to go through the bedroom turnstile) doing things that I would prefer not to envision. How generous of the FLDS men to allow them that glorious privilege in their presence. (Huh. All of that sarcasm dripping off of that last sentence seemed to have gotten all over my keyboard. I'd better knock that off.)

So there you have it. Let's review quickly, shall we?

FLDS women wear their hair the way that they do because they are not allowed to cut it due to the belief that long hair is a symbol of righteousness and, according to the Bible, is a woman's crowning glory. They will also need plenty of hair after the Second Coming of Christ because they will be washing Jesus Christ's feet with their hair. They cannot perm it or dye it, but they can use shampoos, conditioners and hair sprays on their hair when they "style" it. Their "style" of choice involves a poofy front component that rises high above their head in a fashion similar to that of Elvis or of the California quail. The higher the poof, the more righteous the woman. In addition to poofing, the FLDS women employ the style of the "sausage curls" for the sides of the hair and a braid is usually the preferred choice for the hair in the back. They cannot be seen with their hair down unless they are in the private company of only their husband and none of his many, many other wives. And surprisingly, all of this, as the women sporting these hairstyles will tell you (in a monotone voice with a zombie like look on their faces), is done by choice.

No quail were harmed during the writing of this post. (The one above was a little embarrassed, however.)

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - Flawed Logic Doesn't Stick

Let's return for a moment to the land of the YFZ Ranch. YFZ standing for "Yearning For Zion". (Ranch standing for "ranch".) You remember. The mother ship of the FLDS church down yonder in Eldorado, Texas. That's where the followers of Warren Jeffs (self proclaimed Grand Poobah of the FLDS) set up camp and continued their practice of having the older men marry much younger and, in many cases, underaged girls for the purpose of sexing up. Multiple wives, underage intercourse, and lots and lots of children. Them's the makin's of a Texas Child and Family Services Round-Up.

The State of Texas moved in on the compound and removed all of the children who were living there after receiving an anonymous phone call that underage girls were being forced to marry and have sex with adult males for the purpose of bearing their children (ie, the whole "be fruitful and multiply" rule of thumb that is cited by the "religious groups" who make it a practice of allowing underage females to be sexually sacrificed to adult males in their offshoot and whack-a-do sect). "All of the children" means 462! And 462 is a lot of anything, let alone kids.

A one Maggie Jessop, a current member of the FLDS sect whose four children are in the custody of the State of Texas, has written a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune which was published on 05/09/2008. Her letter begins with this opening statement: "So, you want to hear from the FLDS women, huh? OK, you asked for it." And while I appreciate the response, she didn't quite grasp what it is that some individuals want to know (with "some individuals" meaning those of us who are NOT living in a weird religious sect that has cut itself off from society and allows it's underage females to have sex with older men). Yes, we DO want to hear from the FLDS women. BUT we want to hear them ANSWER a question, ANY question, DIRECTLY. We don't want to hear whatever is coming out of your mouth that has nothing to do with anything that was asked of you. We want to hear an ANSWER that is RELEVANT to the question that you were just asked.

For example, when the FLDS women have been asked about underage girls having sex with older men and if that goes on at the YFZ Ranch, the answer that is given is along the lines of, "There is no force. No one is forced. We love our children." (Please recite in a quiet and sing-songy voice for the full effect. Oh, and stare blindly ahead or down at the ground as well. Then you'll really get a feel for it.) And that's fine. But you DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! It's a "Yes" or it's a "No". That's all. And NONE of the women who have been asked that question will say either one. So, good job twisting that around, Maggie. Continue, dear.

Maggie does continue and this time she goes along the same lines with more inflammatory statements/rhetorical questions such as, "In the face of the holocaust going on, most people want to know the truth, right? Well, do you get truth from liars?" Allow me to just say that when people use the term "holocaust" to represent their unpleasant situation, one that is completely unrelated to and uncomparable to the Nazi holocaust in Germany in WWII, it makes me angry. Kinda sick and a little bit angry. (Aside from the fact that the basic definition of a "holocaust" is something that is consumed by fire. If this was Waco, I might be a little more lenient on the "holocaust" comparison. But it's not, so it irritates me.) So, again, nice try with the inflammatory prose, but you're out of line.

She writes, "If someone is different, people get suspicious, perhaps even jealous, and assume the worst." Wait. What? Jealous? Jealous. We're jealous? Of THIS??:

Um, yeah, I don't think so. We might be a lot of things. We might be angry, annoyed and appalled (among other things), but we're not jealous of THAT. Next!

She also states, "I expect the freedom to worship God after the dictates of my own conscience, and believe all men, and women, should be free to do the same." You have that freedom. So do those of us not living inside a walled up compound with men who like to have sex with underage girls. She continues, "Put yourself in my shoes, because you and your children could be next. You think you are safe because you belong to the public?" No. Those who are in public, who are protecting their young children from sexual predators by not allowing the children to be handed over to the older men for sexual gratification, those people ARE safe. And they're safe for THAT reason, NOT because they "belong to the public". And you and your children would be as well if you were doing the same...in a public setting/society or NOT.

Maggie continues along these same "poor me" lines for quite some time. And good for her for speaking out. She's a very articulate individual and can convey her thoughts on paper quite well. However, she is also very good at dancing around the issue at hand and making it appear as if there is some sort of unfounded persecution that is happening to the members of her little community. Children were NOT removed from the YFZ Ranch because they were denied their freedom to worship. Her situation is NOT like the holocaust. People who are not subjecting their underage children to inappropriate (and illegal) situations involving sex are NOT going to be facing the same consequences that she did. We are NOT jealous that they get to dress up like the cast from "Little House On The Prairie" and we don't get to.

It's a pretty long letter. It is available, courtesy of the fine folks over there at The Salt Lake Tribune, at this link: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9211573?IADID I'm going to jump to the end where Maggie wraps up her letter by stating, "Ask your questions about the most misunderstood people on Earth. Seek the truth, and we will answer with truth. Just ask." We HAVE asked. YOU don't ANSWER us directly! (Although, that wasn't one of the things that she stated she would do. Does that mean it's too much for us to ask for a direct answer? We're just supposed to accept the vague truth as "good enough" because it's the truth? I don't think so.) And I'll ask you again, Maggie. Are girls at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, Texas, who are underage, put in situations where they are in an unescapable position where they will be having sex with an older man? (Please note, I'm not using the term "force". The FLDS seem to differentiate between the terms "force" and "doesn't have any other choice" as if they are different. They're not, but they would like to believe that they are. That's why I'm not saying "forced".) The answer is simple. It is either Yes or it is No. (Maybe my first question should have been, "Can you answer a question with just a one word answer?")

She also includes the URLs of two websites that she asks the readers to visit. (One of the websites is http://www.captivefldschildren.org/ ) And that's when the vagueness and the releasing of information that the FLDS members want to release continues. The other website, http://www.fldstruth.org/ , is not exactly the most complete, nor comprehensive, depiction of any sort of "FLDS truth". There are photos of all of those who have been "President" of the FLDS church. Click on each one and you're supposed to be treated to a lovely summary of their life and their Presidency. There are nine photos. There are six summaries. Whose summaries are missing? Why, those of Leroy S. Johnson, Rulon T. Jeffs, and Warren Jeffs. Leroy S. Johnson apparently founded Colorado City, AZ and led the largest polygamist organization in North America until his death at the age of 98. Rulon T. Jeffs took over for Johnson in 1986 and, at the time of his death at the age of 92 in 2002, he had amassed himself at LEAST 19 to 20 wives (some reports say 75) and produced between 60 and 65 children, with 33 of those children being boys. Shortly after his death, one of his sons, Warren Jeffs, took over for him and married all of his dad's wives except for two of them. That meant that he was now the stepfather to his siblings. Nice. Another of Jeffs' accomplishments was getting himself on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List in 2006 unlawful flight to avoid being prosecuted in Utah on charges alleging he arranged marriages between his adult males and underage girls in the FLDS sect. (Oooh. Sounds familiar, doesn't it, Maggie?) Warren was charged with eight counts in Arizona, including sexual conduct with minors and incest (two separate charges there). He was found guilty in Utah of the charges there which consisted of two counts of rape as an accomplice. He is now serving a 10 year to life sentence at the Utah State Prison. Former FLDS members claim that Jeffs has around 70 wives.

But none of THAT information is on the website at http://www.fldstruth.org/ . Why not? You said ask, so we're asking, Maggie! We're asking! We want to know ALL about Warren Jeffs and the stuff that has gone on in the FLDS "church" and over there at the YFZ Ranch RECENTLY! Or maybe you'd just like to change the name of that website to fldspartialtruth.org and leave it at that?

Sphere: Related Content

Be Aware Of All Laws You Violate

So with this whole FLDS polygamist compound down yonder in Texas (Hmmm...an offshoot religious cult holed up on their own compound in the state of Texas. Who'd a thunk it?) there seems to be a lot in the news about the women and about the children. And from what I've seen and heard from these women, my opinion is that they really seem to believe in what they've been doing and how they've been living. And it's the conveyance of that belief with a rather vacuous and monotone delivery of non-responsive answers to questions posed that really makes you wonder about what really goes on inside of a community with a lifestyle such as the one of the FLDS crew.

Those who I've wanted to hear about and hear from are the men of that wacky Wife Wonderland . What are THEY like? What do they think? Would you be surprised at all to learn that they are very similar to the women with their empty stares and their halting and forced speech and their non-responsive answers to questions? It shouldn't surprise you at all, because that's just how it is. The men, however, do have an additional aspect to their personalities. That aspect is fear, as in "I might go to jail because of my collection of child brides" fear.

The video here (courtesy of The Early Show and CBS) is an interview of three male FLDS members from the Texas compound. The video is about 5 minutes long (sorry about the freaking commercial at the beginning), and you'll probably get the idea after about a minute, but I'm going to recap just a bit here.

The FLDSers that we meet are Edson, Rulon and Jake. They all look rather subdued, as one would expect now that your wife clan and children farm has been taken away from you and you could very well be in a lot of trouble, and they appear to be sitting in some sort of a log cabin, the official dwelling structure of the FLDS.

Then the questions begin and so does the enlightenment. These guys are clearly not the sharpest tools in the polygamist's shed. They give brief answers that sound rehearsed and tend to be non-responsive to the specific question they are asked. If you've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell, I'd ask these guys if they're interested before you talk to anyone else. You might save yourself a lot of time.

They're first asked how many children they've cranked out over at Camp FLDS. They all answered with the number of children and the range of their ages. The whole thing seemed a bit robotic, even for robots. But it IS very telling and does explain how weird little societal offshoots like this one can continue to grow. I'm sure it's not real difficult to convince a bunch of Rulon's out there that being a polygamist on a closed compound in Texas is the life for you!

But then Edson gives us plenty of insight with a little diatribe that would have caused any attorney representing him to have a heart attack. Eldon stated, "I think they have a very false perception of the way we live. Because we're quite closed mouthed, they assume a lot of things that aren't there." (Well, I don't know that we assume that because they're "quite closed mouthed". I think we "assume a lot of things" because they're polygamists and they marry underage girls and have sex with them. And that seems like a perfectly reasonable basis upon which to begin to "assume" things.)

The reporter, just to clarify Edson's statement asked, "So are you saying that older men do not marry adolescent girls in your compound?" And Edson, just to clarify his statement, responded, " I didn't say that at all. (insert attorney heart attack here) But I think that people have a false concept of what our religion is all about. To say that they are sexually abused and that people here are...they haven't found anything, to my knowledge, that proves that, but I think that overall they look at us as if we are immoral people. And in our own make up, that is the very most important part of our religion is to be morally clean. You know, I have a hard time standing here and being a criminal when I had no idea that I'm a criminal. I've always strived to be an upright man and my children, my family, everyone that I know love me. And I love them."

Edson struck me as completely brainwashed, yet slowly becoming aware of the situation he's placed himself in and is now afraid for his future. Seems appropriate.

The reporter's next insightful question consisted of, "If an adolescent did have sex with an older man, you would consider that abuse?" Rulon took that question and although he tried to answer authoritatively, he came across as if he was Forrest Gump and had just read the pocket version of "So You Want To Be A Lawyer." He said, "The state...of Texas has defined it as that. I would simply say, if you had a teenage girl that chose to go that way could you force her to do otherwise? No, you could not. We are not a people of force. We are a people of free agency and peace. Yet we do not teach our children to have sexual conduct before they are of age. We do not teach them that. We teach them the contrary." By making sure he was clear about the "state of Texas" and it's definition of abuse, it sure did come across that it wasn't HIS defintion of abuse.

The reporter asked them if they have reconsidered what they have been doing. You know, given the whole, taking 416 children away from the compound ordeal. Forrest Rulon takes this question. "Yes. Many of us, perhaps, were not even aware of such a law. But, yes, we have been made very aware in the last two weeks and we have, we do reconsider. Yes. We teach our children to abide the law." Oh, are you kidding me?!

You teach your children to abide the law?? If that was the case, I guess I would expect you to KNOW the law then, Rulon! Wouldn't that be your responsibility, seeing as how you're the one claiming to be the law-abiding instructor there? Shouldn't you KNOW what the laws ARE so you can teach them correctly to the children? One would think that would be the case. But you guys, well, you just weren't aware.

Well, since they weren't aware of such a law, I guess that changes everything, right? No harm, no foul? Um, no. Not quite. Spare me. You knew it wasn't OK and instead of NOT doing it, you just holed up on your little compound there and figured that the rest of the world would just leave you alone so you could do whatever you wanted to believe that you could do. And if you're ever confronted, just pretend you weren't aware. (And really, trying to come across as being "unaware" will probably be just like second nature for you guys. I doubt that "pretending" will play much of a part at all in that.)

Sphere: Related Content

Can We Protest The Protest?

As long as I was recently on the subject of the FLDS polygamist compound and other subjects that could be seen as being related to the FLDS fiasco (ie, penis theft), I figured I should probably add this. But I'm not happy about it.

Yes, there are a lot of people out there who are opposed to the whole polygamist lifestyle, but there are also a whole lot of people out there who are all in favor of the polygamist lifestyle (mainly the polygamists). Regardless as to if you think it's OK, it's against the law, so you just can't do it. If you'd like to work to get the laws changed, I think that is just a fan-tabulous idea. But until then, you really can't bitch too loudly when your gaggle of women is taken away from you. And even if you're not the one with the gaggle of women at your sexual beck and call, you still can't bitch. Apparently, some people didn't get that memo.

One of those who seems to be unclear on this concept would be Robert Breeze, an attorney in Salt Lake. Actually, this isn't the only concept Bob is unclear on. He also seems to be unclear on the fact that there is NO relationship between NBA basketball playoffs and the FLDS polygamist sect in Texas. That's the only reason I can come up with (other than he's dumber than a box of hair) for him to be calling for a protest rally Thursday night and Saturday night outside of the Energy Solutions Arena in Salt Lake when the Utah Jazz will be playing the Houston Rockets. (Side note: GO JAZZ!)

The following is from the blog "The Polygamy Files: The Tribune's blog on plural life" by Brooke Adams, the polygamy reporter for the Salt Lake Tribune. Brooke received the following notice from Breeze:

Protest Rally

Let the children go home!

Event: Utah Jazz vs. Houston Rockets

Dates: 4-24-08 and 4-26-08

Time: 6:30pm & 8:30pm (Right before Jazz game starts)

Place: In front of the Energy Solutions Arena, Salt Lake City, Utah

Make your own signs!

Examples: ''Shame on Texas!'' ''You messed up, Texas'' ''CPS = Gestapo'' ''Let the children go home!'' ''Stop Breaking Up Families!'' ''Free the Children'' ''Don't Trample Our Rights'' ''Guilty Before Charged?'' ''Star of David Moot with DNA'' ''CPS = Nazi's'' ''CPS = KGB'' ''CPS plays God again'' or bring your own idea.

Purpose: For nationwide coverage of American Citizens protesting against the civil rights violations of the families in Eldorado, Texas. Houston is coming to town to play the Jazz for the playoffs and will have sufficient coverage to reach the whole nation.

This rally is being sponsored by Bob Breeze, a Salt Lake City Attorney, who is concerned for the civil rights of these families in Texas. He has prepared letters to the Utah Jazz and Houston Rockets demanding they cancel the remainder of their playoff games as a sign of solidarity and respect for the citizens of Texas (former residents of Utah) who have had their homes raided and their children taken.For more information, contact Bob Breeze at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

*******

Let's see...how do I approach this? Oh, that's right. I know. WTF?!

Maybe I'm missing something here, as I can see no clear relationship between the FLDS polygamist sect in Texas and an NBA playoff game. (Although.....there IS only ONE basketball and TEN guys on the court. Maybe that's where he got confused. Whatever it is, this guy is nuts.) The picture below clearly illustrates the differences between the FLDS and the NBA.

Look, the NBA and the FLDS have NOTHING to do with each other! I don't care if one team is from Utah and the other team is from Texas. That has nothing to do with it! You should NOT be having a protest about anything in a setting that is totally removed from the issue that you are trying to protest. And you really shouldn't protest something that is totally moronic. If you would like to protest that the civil rights that were violated were those of the young girls who were being raped by older men who were satisfying their own perverted and narcissistic desires under the guise of a religion, feel free, Bob. But regardless, do it somewhere other than outside of an NBA playoff game.

By the way, Bob? Just because you're supplying the paint for this idiotic art project of yours, doesn't make your sign slogan suggestions there any less lame. What the hell does "Star of David Moot with DNA" mean anyway? Who the hell is David Moot?

And "cancel the remainder of their playoff games"? Then what? You are clearly unfamiliar with how the whole playoff system works. You are also clearly unfamiliar with your own sanity.

There's another implication of a stupid stunt like this that just burns my toast. It's not like Utah has all that great of a PR image as it is, and that's unfortunate because it's really not as bad or as weird as it sometimes gets made out to be. It's a great place and I miss it (on occasion). And there's great people who live there, people who are NOT polygamists, people who are NOT raping underage girls, people who do NOT agree with the FLDS sect, people who are NOT breaking the laws. But when protests like these end up getting some national exposure, it's not exactly an image booster for Utah.

Utah is a great place and it's full of a lot of great people and a few nutjobs like Bob Breeze. It's unfortunate that in situations like these, you only hear about the nutjobs. But Bob isn't representative of Utah overall. He's only a representative of anyone who shows up for his rally. So if you're going to make any judgments about this whole dealio, hopefully it will be that the Utah Jazz rule and that the Rockets are going get their ass kicked. Oh, and that you should never hire Bob Breeze if you're in the market for a competent individual to serve as your defense attorney.

By the way, protesting ridiculous causes in ridiculous manners is not something that Robert Breeze is unfamiliar with. In August of 2006, Breeze was the organizer of the "Death to Israel" rally that he held in Salt Lake in anticipation of a visit by President Bush. At that time, Breeze stated his goal was to "protest the torture and murder inflicted on Muslims by Israel and the penetration of the U.S. media by Israeli intelligence." Breeze and his group, The Center to Prevent Corporate Media Lying, had previously protested in front of KSL studios against the media coverage of the Iraq war. His "protesters" included residents from local homeless shelters who were paid for their participation in his event. Breeze called them "vicarious protesters." ("Vicarious" meaning "delegated".) I call them "fake protesters". When Breeze was asked if he wanted to see Israel eliminated and he replied, "The President of Iran has an excellent idea. . . . I would like to see them move Israel to Virginia and put all the current Virginians in a concentration camp. Then we'll see how popular Israel is in the United States." WTF?

Sphere: Related Content

FLDS - Four Layers During Summer

Up until right now, I have successfully managed to just pipe down about Camp FLDS over there in Eldorado, Texas. (Eldorado would appear to be just outside of Polygamyville and a bit to the west of Pedophile-burbia.) However, I am now unsuccessful in keeping quiet on the whole ordeal because there's no way I can pass this up "Polygamist Wives' Fashion is a Statement." Oh, it's a statement all right. Let's see what it says, shall we?

The "fashion" of the FLDS women looks sort of like a cross between a 6-year old girl on Easter Sunday in 1958 and that of very pastel-y "Little House on the Prairie" garb. It IS a statement. It is NOT stating that is is fashionable. Behold!

Now, I took one look at that and the first thing I thought was, "Oh, my God. It's 1862. My time machine works!" Please note, they do not look happy to be dressed like that. They probably don't look happy in general, but neither would I if I had to wear a lilac-colored frock whilst old men on the compound were waiting to sex me up after I turned 14 and they married me. But that's just me.

It's not just the colors that I have a problem with. It's the whole ensemble that I find disturbing. (Not as disturbing as the entire premise of the FLDS cult-like community-compound, but disturbing, nonetheless.) The style of the clothing worn by these poor brainwashed women is a combination of the styles seen in the early 19th century and that of the 1950s clothing that the church assimilated into their practices. The combining of the two styles seemed to occur "when the church took a conservative turn." (I am more than a little curious to know what the church was like before the "conservative" card was played. I mean, how un-conservative could they possibly have been? What? Did they let sunlight beam down upon their wrists on occasion?)

That fascinating bit of apparel trivia was according to Janet Bennion who uses her schooling in anthropology to study polygamist women. (For some reason, I find that amusing. I can almost hear the voice-overs on The Discovery Channel. "Here we are on the outskirts of a compound where the elusive FLDS polygamist woman is rumored to live. We'll stay crouched over here behind this rock and hopefully some of them will emerge. It is through the diligent observation of the polygamist women that we will learn more about their species and will be able to answer questions such as "What is their habitat?" "What do they eat?" "What do they feed their young?")

Continuing with my reasons that no one should follow this practice at all is the part where anyone who is a member of this polygamist sect, including very small children, is to wear the long white cotton or polyester underwear that covers from their neck all the way down to their ankles. The Jesus Jammies are styled after the original temple garments of Joseph Smith (the founder of the regular LDS Church.)So they're basically sheathed from neck to toe in either cotton or polyester. All the time. Every day. All year-round. (And it sounds just torturous to me.)

Oh, but they're not done getting dressed yet! Now that they are clad from their neck all the way down to their ankles in this underwear, they are supposed to disguise the underwear with at least three layers of clothing on top of that. (You know how I "disguise" my underwear? That's right, I put on some pants. Not three layers of pants. Just one pair of pants. But, then again, I'm not covered in underwear from head to toe, either. But I still like my method better.)

Three layers of nylons are to cover the women's legs. And then they have the polyester frock on top of that! (The frock color choices are limited to the pastel line because "the spirit of God cannot reside in anything colorful". Also, "the spirit of God" cannot reside in anything that is black, anything with a print or anything that is red, as red is reserved for Christ to reside in. So you're looking at between 4 to 5 layers of clothing from your neck to your ankles all the time. Do you have any idea what the average temperature is over there in Eldorado? From June through August, the average temperature is 92 really freaking hot degrees! (I don't recall a whole lot of "Thou shalt sweat like a roasted swine 24/7" in the Bible. And although I don't have a very in depth knowledge of the Bible's content overall, I'm pretty sure I'd remember hearing something about that.)

The women's dresses are meant to show modesty and conformity, which is why they must make sure every inch of skin that could be considered "provocative" is covered. Congratulations, ladies. Modesty? Oh, that garb is modest all right. Conformity? Sadly, it definitely sends the message that you all are conforming over there. John Llewellyn, who is a retired Salt Lake County Sheriff's lieutenant and a polygamy expert, says that the other reason the women are covering themselves is "so that they're unattractive to the outside world or other men." And again, congratulations, ladies. You've made yourself unattractive to other men AND other women as well! Nice job!

Janet Binnion also says that the women's clothing is stitched with special markings which "protect the body and to remind you of you commitment." Protect the body? Probably only if they fell down. They're wearing so many layers, they wouldn't feel a thing! And it would be difficult not to be reminded that you should have yourself committed for wearing 4 layers of cotton and polyester in the middle of the summer.

And what better way to compliment your polygamist woman look that you're striving for than with a hairstyle that screams "I'm crazy!" just as loudly as the rest of your wardrobe does. The polygamist women never cut their hair. No, it's not so they can swaddle themselves in their own hair to cover up their underwear suit. It because when the Second Coming rolls around, they will use their hair to wash Christ's feet. Wait. What?

Wash his FEET?! With their hair!? OK, I'm starting to think that someone is just making this stuff up. And I'd almost believe that were the case if I hadn't seen all of the pictures of these long haired, over dressed, prairie women milling about Texas. They take this hair thing pretty seriously, too. Since there is a quote in the Bible that says that a woman's hair should be her crowning glory (and they don't look like they have a whole lot going on over there that would qualify as "glorious" and that would include the hair), the women have come up with what "crowning glory" looks like. Behold! Crowning glory.

In case you're dying to try this at your next neighborhood polygamist Tupperware party or other festive get together, the bangs are grown out and then they are rolled. Don't be whipping out that curling iron to roll them, though! That's just too modern. The sides of the hair are done in what are called "sausage curls" (a style developed by the wife of Jimmy Dean. Yes, that is correct.) and then the back of the hair is braided. The higher that the "sausage curl" sits above the forehead, the more righteous the woman. The younger women seem to go with a more Elvis-y kind of pompadour look, which clearly strives for the "righteousness" of the elder brainwashed women. And just so you know, the only time you'll be letting that hair down in when it's your turn to go through the turnstile and spend a little time in the sack with your husband. Other than that, you shall always be sporting the self-righteous, sausage-y goodness, poofy, bun-like do on your head. Lucky you.

See what I mean? This is just bizarre on way too many levels. Multiple wives. Polygamist compounds. Several layers of thick clothing all the time. And the heat! My God, the heat! It's all a bit much if you're asking me. But I saved the "crowning glory", if you will, of the imprisoned and brainwashed polygamist wife look for last. To get it to all come together for the full effect that you're going for here, you need to remember two words. Don't tweeze.

Sphere: Related Content