Question? About Flds Women and Child support

[Glow]

Glow, you refer to the TSC decision. What the Court actually said was that the judge allowed the removal of all of the children based on what a few of them said. To simplify it, pretend you have a family with 5 kids. CPS interviews 1 kid who says that daddy has been having sex with them and will beat them for telling. Based on that information, the worker determines that all 5 children are in danger and removes them all before finding out whether or not they are being abused. The Court said that this was in error and that all the children should have been interviewed and only the ones who made out cries should have been removed. That is very different from saying abuse did not occur.

I thought that the court said they should have only removed the children under suspicion of abuse i.e. girls approaching or in adolescence? This clearly would not apply to boys, young children of either sex or infants of either gender.We cant forget that CPS agent Angie Voss testified under oath that every single one of the households at the ranch had been involved in under-aged marriage.

Woof, I get the point you are trying to make about this not being the deciding factor about whether there was truly abuse occuring or not, and I agree with you.

Due to that finding, some of the children were returned home and the RISK was controlled other ways. .

And wouldnt that have been a great way to try first? Imagine, breast feeding infants not ripped away unessarily from their mothers. An epeliptic child having ready access to his medication. Just a couple of examples of how things could have gone just a bit better.

Glow, those 91 findings are a fact. They are a matter of record. They are not a figment of my imagination, nor are they my opinion. They were not over turned by the TSC. They will remain the findings of the investigation.

This is true. The "findings" are a fact. It is also a "fact" that those wouldnt have even been considered "findings" before Harvey Hilderbran proposed legislation that raised the legal marital age in Texas.

I think part of the problem is that you are confusing the rules of a criminal investigation with a CPS investigation, which is a civil matter.

You are probably right. I am not a CPS case worker nor am I a lawyer. But the way it stands demonstrates, once again, that yes, CPS did grossly overstep its boundaries, the state Supreme Court was correct and Judge Walthers was wrong.

 

[The_Woof]

And wouldnt that have been a great way to try first? Imagine, breast feeding infants not ripped away unessarily from their mothers. An epeliptic child having ready access to his medication. Just a couple of examples of how things could have gone just a bit better.

I agree and generally, all options are explored prior to removal. In this case, the workers could not tell which kids belonged to which parents and did not feel that they could control risk with out this knowledge. By the time the kids were returned, DNA was back and they could.

This is true. The "findings" are a fact. It is also a "fact" that those wouldnt have even been considered "findings" before Harvey Hilderbran proposed legislation that raised the legal marital age in Texas.

I don't necessarly agree with this. The definition of sexual abuse states that the parents allow or knowingly place the child in a situation where sexual abuse can happen. To CPS this means that if the parents encouraged a minor (under 18) child to have sex, they would have committed sexual abuse. In addition, since we're talking about pologomy, the age of marriage wouldn't matter, because the marriage wouldn't be legal.

You are probably right. I am not a CPS case worker nor am I a lawyer. But the way it stands demonstrates, once again, that yes, CPS did grossly overstep its boundaries, the state Supreme Court was correct and Judge Walthers was wrong.

I just can't agree with this statement. CPS did as it was legally mandated to do.

In general, I get very frustrated with this argument. Over on the Missing forum, people are up in arms that CPS in MO is not taking the children of a missing woman from the husband because they think he killed her (I do too, fwiw). However, there's no evidence that he has hurt the children. I feel like the public will villify CPS no matter what they do. However, that's another rant for another day.

Glow, I am enjoying our debate and hope you don't feel I'm attacking you.

 

[Glow]

I don't necessarly agree with this. The definition of sexual abuse states that the parents allow or knowingly place the child in a situation where sexual abuse can happen. To CPS this means that if the parents encouraged a minor (under 18) child to have sex, they would have committed sexual abuse. In addition, since we're talking about pologomy, the age of marriage wouldn't matter, because the marriage wouldn't be legal.

Well this is where it jumps off into the deep end of the philosophy pool. If we set aside what we know and believe in our modern society the parameters change. We dont have to go to a far flung part of the globe to find practices we would shocked at in modern society. For instance, in the 18th century, the children of Kings and Queens rarely chose their husband or wife. Most of the time, royal weddings were made to conclude a treaty between 2 kingdoms, usually a peace treaty. The husband and wife were usually very young. For example, Marie-Antoinette was 14 when she got married. We are talking Europe here - not Somalia. To pick another example we Americans have an emotional affinity to (given the holiday that was just celebrated Dec. 25) Mary, the mother of Jesus was (scholars believe) between 12 and 14 when she gave birth to Jesus. Would the God of the Hebrews as well as the God of Christian America have impregnated a 12 year old if that were biologically wrong?

While saying this, I can tell you that I am not promoting sexual activity among adolescents. The fact remains however that it is a very recent thing for us to want to see females age upward before they bear children (the proof of sexual activity) and while we say we desire that, we still are sending a mixed message even now. For example, we (on TV) promote the use of Gardisil. Lots of pretty athletic teen girls and their moms encouraging a vaccine that is only necessary in the first place if the female child is going to be engaging in sexual activity. Isnt the not so subtle indication embedded in the infomercial that we expect these children to have sex? Since the girls in this commercial are appearing with older adult women "posing" as their mothers, wouldnt that qualify as adults "knowing" or "allowing"? Where is the massive outcry about that?

In general, I get very frustrated with this argument. Over on the Missing forum, people are up in arms that CPS in MO is not taking the children of a missing woman from the husband because they think he killed her (I do too, fwiw). However, there's no evidence that he has hurt the children. I feel like the public will villify CPS no matter what they do. However, that's another rant for another day..

I understand what you mean about feeling frustrated. It is a catch 22 situation for the the very sincere CPS workers where no real choice exists that is going to please everyone.

Glow I am enjoying our debate and hope you don't feel I'm attacking you.

First let me say that in 6 years of posting here, I have never had the first problem with a poster. I believe in letting people say whats on their mind. Having said that, as far as you personally woof, I dont feel that way at all. You are a very logical and intellectual poster and I am enjoying our exchange of thoughts very much.

 

[Spangle]

This is true. The "findings" are a fact. It is also a "fact" that those wouldnt have even been considered "findings" before Harvey Hilderbran proposed legislation that raised the legal marital age in Texas.

Yep, it's true. Not opinion as you was claiming, but fact.

That the marriage age was changed really doesn't change the issue. Since second and later marriages were not considered legal before or after the change. And if a parent believes it's their right to force their young child into marriage, they are knowingly placing a child in a situation for that child to be sexually exploited. Then that is child endangerment. A parent who has done that, has been part of sexual abuse. IF they did so with one child, then just like all sexual predators, they shouldn't be allowed around children. Including their own. Not saying this because of the FDLS situation.. that is just what really does happen to such predators.

You are probably right. I am not a CPS case worker nor am I a lawyer. But the way it stands demonstrates, once again, that yes, CPS did grossly overstep its boundaries, the state Supreme Court was correct and Judge Walthers was wrong.

The Judge wasn't wrong. The Judge has been dealing with CPS cases for awhile and knew the score. AFter dealing with many CPS type cases, one quickly realized it's not like criminal law cases.

CPS deals with trying to help and protect children, who most likely suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Many children do not trust CPS and will not talk to them. They might be in a very abusive situation, but are told that NO ONE can help them and if they talk, they will regret it.

As a Foster Mother who was there when my Foster child finaly started talking... I can tell you that isn't not the same. Even when the child talked, she didn't tell everything. She had lied in the past to CPS workers, because her parents (the abusers) told her to do so. To keep the family secrets.

THat last part, that is one of the reasons all the children are removed. The abusers will try to 'control' what the kids tell. AFter dealing with such stuff over and over again.. CPS realizes what happens on the other side. Just doing an investigation puts children at a higher risk.

In this case, where so many familys are under investigation.. those familys that ARE guilty are going to either hide the evidence (abused child) and/or pressure the children not to tell/talk/hint/ etc... Those children out of fear for themselfs or family group will do everything in their power to protect what family unit they have.

As much as I hate the removal of children from their homes, I really don't see any way to investigate a group this size, without such a large removal. That mothers got to go with the children.. that was a great and wonderful things for those children. I've never heard of such in any of the cases I know about.

 

[InLightAndTruth]

Spangle
(the FLDS are not the only ones involved, that kept secrets)


Part of Merrill Jessops Deposition last Friday


Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) And that’s up to you, okay.

21 Have Teresa Jeffs and Raymond Jessop had a
22 child together?
23 [Ms. Hennington]: Upon — upon the advice of
24 counsel he’s exerting his Fifth Amendment; the basis is
25 that there is potential state investigation still

0053

1 ongoing, as well as criminal investigations under the
2 Mann Act out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
3 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Are you taking the
4 advice of your counsel and choosing not to answer that
5 question?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that on the basis that it might incriminate
8 you; is that your understanding? I just want to make
9 sure you’re agreeing that you’re not answering because
10 you fear that it might incriminate you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know how old Teresa is?
13 [Ms. Hennington]: Upon advice of counsel my
14 client is pleading the Fifth; the basis for that is
15 criminal investigations that have been indicated by the
16 Texas Attorney General and they’re ongoing subject to
17 search warrants from April of ‘08, as well as ongoing
18 investigations by the federal U.S. Attorney.

——————–

Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) — within the FLDS?

25 Okay. Is your daughter, Merrianne, married

0058

1 to Warren Jeffs?
2 MS. HENNINGTON: Upon the advice of counsel
3 the client is invoking the Fifth; the basis is the
4 ongoing investigation and the fact that he state and
5 he’s under indictment.
6 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. When making an
7 inference that she is married or hypothetically that
8 she’s married to Warren Jeffs, did she upon the
9 happening of that event move into Warren Jeffs’ home?
10 MS. HENNINGTON: Upon the advice of client
11 my counsel is invoking his right to Fifth Amendment, the
12 basis of the same; he’s under indictment, state and
13 federal investigations.

————-

Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Does your daughter,
21 Merrianne, have a child?
22 MS. HENNINGTON: Objection to form as to
23 leading.
24 Again, my client is also exerting his
25 privilege under self — Fifth Amendment, the basis is

0060

1 in — particularly an indictment that is pending here in
2 Schleicher County, as well as state and federal
3 investigations.
4 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Are you aware of whether or
5 not your daughter, Merrianne, has engaged in a sexual
6 relationship with Warren Jeffs?

7 MS. HENNINGTON: My client is invoking his
8 privilege under the Fifth Amendment; the basis being the
9 same as the others.

BECAUSE THIS CASE WAS 2001, WE NOW KNOW THE PRIESTHOOD ORDERED THE DAUGHTERS TO WRITE THE LETTERS. YOU GET ABUSED, THEN YOU ARE TOLD TO WRITE LETTERS TO DEFEND YOUR ATTACKER! SO MANY SEEM OBLIVIOUS TO THIS REAL PAST. THE FATHER CONFESSED!

In 2001, Dan Barlow Jr., son of the Colorado City mayor, was charged with 14 counts of sexual abuse, accused of repeatedly molesting his five daughters, ages 12 to 19, over several years. According to the police report, Barlow confessed to the crimes.

Letters begging for mercy poured into Ekstrom's office in Kingman, Ariz. The daughters expressed love for their father and asked that he not get any prison time. They also asked that they not be required to testify against him.

FLDS member LeRoy Fischer said Barlow shouldn't be jailed because he was the only locksmith in town and "a prison sentence would only add an additional burden to society."

Floyd Barlow, the defendant's son, said his abused sisters "look happy" and could get emotional help from their mother if necessary.

Barlow was allowed to plead guilty to a single, lesser charge of sexual abuse, and was sentenced to 120 days in jail — most of which was suspended. He served 13 days.

Prosecutors said they had few options, and blamed shoddy police work — a one-page report — reluctant witnesses and numerous pleas for leniency.

"You have to play the hand you are dealt. I could have put him on trial anyway and then lost everything," said Matt Smith, the current Mohave County attorney who prosecuted the case. "I got at least probation, and he is a sex offender."

LA Times May 12th, 2006
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy448.html

I knew more than the LA Times was allowed to write and the rest of the story will bubble out eventually, the part some in the media know, but are afraid to publish!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly, David" <David.Kelly@latimes.com>
To: "'Jay Beswick '" <patches@as.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: FBI and what they knew and when?


> I would never counsel against exacting revenge, comes with being
Irish. I
> suspect that after Warren Jeffs is captured and the initial media
> nightmare subsides more and more people will start asking who knew
what
> and when. At the moment, no one is asking that. I have seen CNN and
CNBC
> and even O'Reilly do this story night after night and that question
never
> arises and if it does it is slapped down with an offhand comment about
how
> impractical it would be to arrest polygamists. That of course ignores
all
> the other issues and more importantly how this place came to be and
why
> its taken 50 years to do anything. I think in this media cycle the
primary
> interest is in Warren Jeffs and all the salaciousness polygamy that
> entails. It's painful to have had this story done in mid-March and
have it
> sit there all these months while this is going on. But it now seems
that
> it will run it this Sunday and Monday. Its shorter than it was, lots
of
> stuff had to be taken out but I hope it will !
> create some sort of reaction. At the very least it will open the door
to
> asking about how this had been allowed to go on for so long. I hope it

> will. Of course it could just fizzle. We'll see. I plan on bringing
your
> stuff back to you next week sometime. Maybe Tuesday or Wednesday?
>
> thanks again for your help
> david kelly
___________________________________

Who knew what and when, is the story that is waiting to come forward!

Q & A to why U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch played the organ in Colorado City every year!

From a July 2003 story by Jane Zhang in the St. George Spectrum Newspaper;

Asked about polygamy at a town hall meeting in St. George in April, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he needed evidence of abuse for any polygamy charges. Hatch said he would not "sit here and judge anybody just because they live differently than me."

Hatch had played the organ in a church building in Colorado City, said Jeannine Holt, who attended Saturday's ceremony representing Hatch.

"I shed a lot of tears putting myself in (the shoes of) the mother of children," said Holt, who has three kids.

____________

Then in March 2003;

Hatch spars about polygamy at town meet
By Nancy Perkins
Deseret News correspondent

ST. GEORGE — Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, found himself in a verbal sparring match with a couple of residents Thursday night when the pair challenged the senator's stance on polygamy.
Bob Curran, director of an anti-polygamy group in St. George called Help the Child Brides, asked Hatch if he knew girls as young as 13 and 14 were being forced into marriages with older men living in the nearby twin polygamous towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
"I wouldn't throw accusations around unless you know they're true," Hatch cautioned Curran and another speaker, Sonja Blancke, who also questioned the senator on his position.
"I'm not here to justify polygamy," Hatch said. "All I can say is, I know people in Hildale who are polygamists who are very fine people. You come and show me evidence of children being abused there and I'll get involved. Bring the evidence to me."

______

So evidence was sent to the powerful U.S. Senator that demanded evidence, but what occured after was a letter sent back from the Senators Attorney, trying to distance the senator from this issue;

United States Senate
Washington, D. C.

Orrin G. Hatch
Utah

September 3, 2003



Dear Mr. Ashurst,

As Counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, your email
regarding allegations of child abuse by polygamous
groups was referred to me. Shortly after receiving
your email I contacted the office of the attorney
General for the State of Utah, and additionally
discussed the issues directly with Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff. As you are no doubt aware, Mr.
Shurtleff has made significant steps in investigating
and prosecuting child abuse issues. His recent summit
may also prove to be helpful in preventing future
incidents.

Investigating and prosecuting, if appropriate, cases
of child abuse is essentially a matter for local law
enforcement jurisdiction. As a former public
prosecutor and senior judge, my perspective is that
the Attorney Generals Office and state and local law
enforcement are dealing appropriately with this
troubling issue. The course being pursued by Utah law
enforcement (successful selective prosecutions coupled
with education and public awareness, while maintaining
respect for bona fide religious belief) appears to be
a reasoned and appropriate response.

Any additional information regarding these child
abuses issues that may come to your attention should
be submitted to law enforcement agencies, the
applicable County Attorney, (who is the State
Prosecutor under Utah law), or the Attorney Generals
Office. Matters of criminal investigation and
prosecution are not within our purview, but rather
correctly belong to those agencies

Thank you for you communication to our office, and
also for your interest in protecting children.

Sincerely yours


Roger A. Livingston
Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch


SO MANY SECRETS TO KEEP!

 

[InLightAndTruth]

Spangle
(the FLDS are not the only ones involved, that kept secrets)


Part of Merrill Jessops Deposition last Friday


Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) And that’s up to you, okay.

21 Have Teresa Jeffs and Raymond Jessop had a
22 child together?
23 [Ms. Hennington]: Upon — upon the advice of
24 counsel he’s exerting his Fifth Amendment; the basis is
25 that there is potential state investigation still

0053

1 ongoing, as well as criminal investigations under the
2 Mann Act out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
3 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Are you taking the
4 advice of your counsel and choosing not to answer that
5 question?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that on the basis that it might incriminate
8 you; is that your understanding? I just want to make
9 sure you’re agreeing that you’re not answering because
10 you fear that it might incriminate you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know how old Teresa is?
13 [Ms. Hennington]: Upon advice of counsel my
14 client is pleading the Fifth; the basis for that is
15 criminal investigations that have been indicated by the
16 Texas Attorney General and they’re ongoing subject to
17 search warrants from April of ‘08, as well as ongoing
18 investigations by the federal U.S. Attorney.

——————–

Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) — within the FLDS?

25 Okay. Is your daughter, Merrianne, married

0058

1 to Warren Jeffs?
2 MS. HENNINGTON: Upon the advice of counsel
3 the client is invoking the Fifth; the basis is the
4 ongoing investigation and the fact that he state and
5 he’s under indictment.
6 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. When making an
7 inference that she is married or hypothetically that
8 she’s married to Warren Jeffs, did she upon the
9 happening of that event move into Warren Jeffs’ home?
10 MS. HENNINGTON: Upon the advice of client
11 my counsel is invoking his right to Fifth Amendment, the
12 basis of the same; he’s under indictment, state and
13 federal investigations.

————-

Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Does your daughter,
21 Merrianne, have a child?
22 MS. HENNINGTON: Objection to form as to
23 leading.
24 Again, my client is also exerting his
25 privilege under self — Fifth Amendment, the basis is

0060

1 in — particularly an indictment that is pending here in
2 Schleicher County, as well as state and federal
3 investigations.
4 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Are you aware of whether or
5 not your daughter, Merrianne, has engaged in a sexual
6 relationship with Warren Jeffs?

7 MS. HENNINGTON: My client is invoking his
8 privilege under the Fifth Amendment; the basis being the
9 same as the others.

BECAUSE THIS CASE WAS 2001, WE NOW KNOW THE PRIESTHOOD ORDERED THE DAUGHTERS TO WRITE THE LETTERS. YOU GET ABUSED, THEN YOU ARE TOLD TO WRITE LETTERS TO DEFEND YOUR ATTACKER! SO MANY SEEM OBLIVIOUS TO THIS REAL PAST. THE FATHER CONFESSED!

In 2001, Dan Barlow Jr., son of the Colorado City mayor, was charged with 14 counts of sexual abuse, accused of repeatedly molesting his five daughters, ages 12 to 19, over several years. According to the police report, Barlow confessed to the crimes.

Letters begging for mercy poured into Ekstrom's office in Kingman, Ariz. The daughters expressed love for their father and asked that he not get any prison time. They also asked that they not be required to testify against him.

FLDS member LeRoy Fischer said Barlow shouldn't be jailed because he was the only locksmith in town and "a prison sentence would only add an additional burden to society."

Floyd Barlow, the defendant's son, said his abused sisters "look happy" and could get emotional help from their mother if necessary.

Barlow was allowed to plead guilty to a single, lesser charge of sexual abuse, and was sentenced to 120 days in jail — most of which was suspended. He served 13 days.

Prosecutors said they had few options, and blamed shoddy police work — a one-page report — reluctant witnesses and numerous pleas for leniency.

"You have to play the hand you are dealt. I could have put him on trial anyway and then lost everything," said Matt Smith, the current Mohave County attorney who prosecuted the case. "I got at least probation, and he is a sex offender."

LA Times May 12th, 2006
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy448.html

I knew more than the LA Times was allowed to write and the rest of the story will bubble out eventually, the part some in the media know, but are afraid to publish!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly, David" <David.Kelly@latimes.com>
To: "'Jay Beswick '" <patches@as.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: FBI and what they knew and when?


> I would never counsel against exacting revenge, comes with being
Irish. I
> suspect that after Warren Jeffs is captured and the initial media
> nightmare subsides more and more people will start asking who knew
what
> and when. At the moment, no one is asking that. I have seen CNN and
CNBC
> and even O'Reilly do this story night after night and that question
never
> arises and if it does it is slapped down with an offhand comment about
how
> impractical it would be to arrest polygamists. That of course ignores
all
> the other issues and more importantly how this place came to be and
why
> its taken 50 years to do anything. I think in this media cycle the
primary
> interest is in Warren Jeffs and all the salaciousness polygamy that
> entails. It's painful to have had this story done in mid-March and
have it
> sit there all these months while this is going on. But it now seems
that
> it will run it this Sunday and Monday. Its shorter than it was, lots
of
> stuff had to be taken out but I hope it will !
> create some sort of reaction. At the very least it will open the door
to
> asking about how this had been allowed to go on for so long. I hope it

> will. Of course it could just fizzle. We'll see. I plan on bringing
your
> stuff back to you next week sometime. Maybe Tuesday or Wednesday?
>
> thanks again for your help
> david kelly
___________________________________

Who knew what and when, is the story that is waiting to come forward!

Q & A to why U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch played the organ in Colorado City every year!

From a July 2003 story by Jane Zhang in the St. George Spectrum Newspaper;

Asked about polygamy at a town hall meeting in St. George in April, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he needed evidence of abuse for any polygamy charges. Hatch said he would not "sit here and judge anybody just because they live differently than me."

Hatch had played the organ in a church building in Colorado City, said Jeannine Holt, who attended Saturday's ceremony representing Hatch.

"I shed a lot of tears putting myself in (the shoes of) the mother of children," said Holt, who has three kids.

____________

Then in March 2003;

Hatch spars about polygamy at town meet
By Nancy Perkins
Deseret News correspondent

ST. GEORGE — Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, found himself in a verbal sparring match with a couple of residents Thursday night when the pair challenged the senator's stance on polygamy.
Bob Curran, director of an anti-polygamy group in St. George called Help the Child Brides, asked Hatch if he knew girls as young as 13 and 14 were being forced into marriages with older men living in the nearby twin polygamous towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
"I wouldn't throw accusations around unless you know they're true," Hatch cautioned Curran and another speaker, Sonja Blancke, who also questioned the senator on his position.
"I'm not here to justify polygamy," Hatch said. "All I can say is, I know people in Hildale who are polygamists who are very fine people. You come and show me evidence of children being abused there and I'll get involved. Bring the evidence to me."

______

So evidence was sent to the powerful U.S. Senator that demanded evidence, but what occured after was a letter sent back from the Senators Attorney, trying to distance the senator from this issue;

United States Senate
Washington, D. C.

Orrin G. Hatch
Utah

September 3, 2003



Dear Mr. Ashurst,

As Counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, your email
regarding allegations of child abuse by polygamous
groups was referred to me. Shortly after receiving
your email I contacted the office of the attorney
General for the State of Utah, and additionally
discussed the issues directly with Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff. As you are no doubt aware, Mr.
Shurtleff has made significant steps in investigating
and prosecuting child abuse issues. His recent summit
may also prove to be helpful in preventing future
incidents.

Investigating and prosecuting, if appropriate, cases
of child abuse is essentially a matter for local law
enforcement jurisdiction. As a former public
prosecutor and senior judge, my perspective is that
the Attorney Generals Office and state and local law
enforcement are dealing appropriately with this
troubling issue. The course being pursued by Utah law
enforcement (successful selective prosecutions coupled
with education and public awareness, while maintaining
respect for bona fide religious belief) appears to be
a reasoned and appropriate response.

Any additional information regarding these child
abuses issues that may come to your attention should
be submitted to law enforcement agencies, the
applicable County Attorney, (who is the State
Prosecutor under Utah law), or the Attorney Generals
Office. Matters of criminal investigation and
prosecution are not within our purview, but rather
correctly belong to those agencies

Thank you for you communication to our office, and
also for your interest in protecting children.

Sincerely yours


Roger A. Livingston
Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch


SO MANY SECRETS TO KEEP!

 

[InLightAndTruth]

Spangle
(the FLDS are not the only ones involved, that kept secrets)


Part of Merrill Jessops Deposition last Friday


Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) And that’s up to you, okay.

21 Have Teresa Jeffs and Raymond Jessop had a
22 child together?
23 [Ms. Hennington]: Upon — upon the advice of
24 counsel he’s exerting his Fifth Amendment; the basis is
25 that there is potential state investigation still

0053

1 ongoing, as well as criminal investigations under the
2 Mann Act out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
3 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Are you taking the
4 advice of your counsel and choosing not to answer that
5 question?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is that on the basis that it might incriminate
8 you; is that your understanding? I just want to make
9 sure you’re agreeing that you’re not answering because
10 you fear that it might incriminate you?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Do you know how old Teresa is?
13 [Ms. Hennington]: Upon advice of counsel my
14 client is pleading the Fifth; the basis for that is
15 criminal investigations that have been indicated by the
16 Texas Attorney General and they’re ongoing subject to
17 search warrants from April of ‘08, as well as ongoing
18 investigations by the federal U.S. Attorney.

——————–

Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) — within the FLDS?

25 Okay. Is your daughter, Merrianne, married

0058

1 to Warren Jeffs?
2 MS. HENNINGTON: Upon the advice of counsel
3 the client is invoking the Fifth; the basis is the
4 ongoing investigation and the fact that he state and
5 he’s under indictment.
6 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. When making an
7 inference that she is married or hypothetically that
8 she’s married to Warren Jeffs, did she upon the
9 happening of that event move into Warren Jeffs’ home?
10 MS. HENNINGTON: Upon the advice of client
11 my counsel is invoking his right to Fifth Amendment, the
12 basis of the same; he’s under indictment, state and
13 federal investigations.

————-

Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Okay. Does your daughter,
21 Merrianne, have a child?
22 MS. HENNINGTON: Objection to form as to
23 leading.
24 Again, my client is also exerting his
25 privilege under self — Fifth Amendment, the basis is

0060

1 in — particularly an indictment that is pending here in
2 Schleicher County, as well as state and federal
3 investigations.
4 Q. (BY MS. MALONIS) Are you aware of whether or
5 not your daughter, Merrianne, has engaged in a sexual
6 relationship with Warren Jeffs?

7 MS. HENNINGTON: My client is invoking his
8 privilege under the Fifth Amendment; the basis being the
9 same as the others.

BECAUSE THIS CASE WAS 2001, WE NOW KNOW THE PRIESTHOOD ORDERED THE DAUGHTERS TO WRITE THE LETTERS. YOU GET ABUSED, THEN YOU ARE TOLD TO WRITE LETTERS TO DEFEND YOUR ATTACKER! SO MANY SEEM OBLIVIOUS TO THIS REAL PAST. THE FATHER CONFESSED!

In 2001, Dan Barlow Jr., son of the Colorado City mayor, was charged with 14 counts of sexual abuse, accused of repeatedly molesting his five daughters, ages 12 to 19, over several years. According to the police report, Barlow confessed to the crimes.

Letters begging for mercy poured into Ekstrom's office in Kingman, Ariz. The daughters expressed love for their father and asked that he not get any prison time. They also asked that they not be required to testify against him.

FLDS member LeRoy Fischer said Barlow shouldn't be jailed because he was the only locksmith in town and "a prison sentence would only add an additional burden to society."

Floyd Barlow, the defendant's son, said his abused sisters "look happy" and could get emotional help from their mother if necessary.

Barlow was allowed to plead guilty to a single, lesser charge of sexual abuse, and was sentenced to 120 days in jail — most of which was suspended. He served 13 days.

Prosecutors said they had few options, and blamed shoddy police work — a one-page report — reluctant witnesses and numerous pleas for leniency.

"You have to play the hand you are dealt. I could have put him on trial anyway and then lost everything," said Matt Smith, the current Mohave County attorney who prosecuted the case. "I got at least probation, and he is a sex offender."

LA Times May 12th, 2006
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy448.html

I knew more than the LA Times was allowed to write and the rest of the story will bubble out eventually, the part some in the media know, but are afraid to publish!

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly, David" <David.Kelly@latimes.com>
To: "'Jay Beswick '" <patches@as.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 9:41 AM
Subject: RE: FBI and what they knew and when?


> I would never counsel against exacting revenge, comes with being
Irish. I
> suspect that after Warren Jeffs is captured and the initial media
> nightmare subsides more and more people will start asking who knew
what
> and when. At the moment, no one is asking that. I have seen CNN and
CNBC
> and even O'Reilly do this story night after night and that question
never
> arises and if it does it is slapped down with an offhand comment about
how
> impractical it would be to arrest polygamists. That of course ignores
all
> the other issues and more importantly how this place came to be and
why
> its taken 50 years to do anything. I think in this media cycle the
primary
> interest is in Warren Jeffs and all the salaciousness polygamy that
> entails. It's painful to have had this story done in mid-March and
have it
> sit there all these months while this is going on. But it now seems
that
> it will run it this Sunday and Monday. Its shorter than it was, lots
of
> stuff had to be taken out but I hope it will !
> create some sort of reaction. At the very least it will open the door
to
> asking about how this had been allowed to go on for so long. I hope it

> will. Of course it could just fizzle. We'll see. I plan on bringing
your
> stuff back to you next week sometime. Maybe Tuesday or Wednesday?
>
> thanks again for your help
> david kelly
___________________________________

Who knew what and when, is the story that is waiting to come forward!

Q & A to why U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch played the organ in Colorado City every year!

From a July 2003 story by Jane Zhang in the St. George Spectrum Newspaper;

Asked about polygamy at a town hall meeting in St. George in April, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said he needed evidence of abuse for any polygamy charges. Hatch said he would not "sit here and judge anybody just because they live differently than me."

Hatch had played the organ in a church building in Colorado City, said Jeannine Holt, who attended Saturday's ceremony representing Hatch.

"I shed a lot of tears putting myself in (the shoes of) the mother of children," said Holt, who has three kids.

____________

Then in March 2003;

Hatch spars about polygamy at town meet
By Nancy Perkins
Deseret News correspondent

ST. GEORGE — Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, found himself in a verbal sparring match with a couple of residents Thursday night when the pair challenged the senator's stance on polygamy.
Bob Curran, director of an anti-polygamy group in St. George called Help the Child Brides, asked Hatch if he knew girls as young as 13 and 14 were being forced into marriages with older men living in the nearby twin polygamous towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.
"I wouldn't throw accusations around unless you know they're true," Hatch cautioned Curran and another speaker, Sonja Blancke, who also questioned the senator on his position.
"I'm not here to justify polygamy," Hatch said. "All I can say is, I know people in Hildale who are polygamists who are very fine people. You come and show me evidence of children being abused there and I'll get involved. Bring the evidence to me."

______

So evidence was sent to the powerful U.S. Senator that demanded evidence, but what occured after was a letter sent back from the Senators Attorney, trying to distance the senator from this issue;

United States Senate
Washington, D. C.

Orrin G. Hatch
Utah

September 3, 2003



Dear Mr. Ashurst,

As Counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch, your email
regarding allegations of child abuse by polygamous
groups was referred to me. Shortly after receiving
your email I contacted the office of the attorney
General for the State of Utah, and additionally
discussed the issues directly with Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff. As you are no doubt aware, Mr.
Shurtleff has made significant steps in investigating
and prosecuting child abuse issues. His recent summit
may also prove to be helpful in preventing future
incidents.

Investigating and prosecuting, if appropriate, cases
of child abuse is essentially a matter for local law
enforcement jurisdiction. As a former public
prosecutor and senior judge, my perspective is that
the Attorney Generals Office and state and local law
enforcement are dealing appropriately with this
troubling issue. The course being pursued by Utah law
enforcement (successful selective prosecutions coupled
with education and public awareness, while maintaining
respect for bona fide religious belief) appears to be
a reasoned and appropriate response.

Any additional information regarding these child
abuses issues that may come to your attention should
be submitted to law enforcement agencies, the
applicable County Attorney, (who is the State
Prosecutor under Utah law), or the Attorney Generals
Office. Matters of criminal investigation and
prosecution are not within our purview, but rather
correctly belong to those agencies

Thank you for you communication to our office, and
also for your interest in protecting children.

Sincerely yours


Roger A. Livingston
Counsel to Senator Orrin G. Hatch


SO MANY SECRETS TO KEEP!

 

[Glow]

As a Foster Mother who was there when my Foster child finaly started talking... I can tell you that isn't not the same. Even when the child talked, she didn't tell everything. She had lied in the past to CPS workers, because her parents (the abusers) told her to do so. To keep the family secrets.

Spangle, bless you for being a foster mom. I think that is so wonderful.

As much as I hate the removal of children from their homes, I really don't see any way to investigate a group this size, without such a large removal. That mothers got to go with the children.. that was a great and wonderful things for those children. I've never heard of such in any of the cases I know about.

Well one thing would have been to leave all the children that did not fit the category of the suspected abuse. Their was no emergency need to remove the boys or the infants for example. Their situations could have been evaluated with them in their homes. Which is what eventually happened anyway. Only it happened after much trauma and unnecessary money spent.

I could go drag up links about children having to be hospitalized, and other traumas that occured. Just the observations of CASA alone was so damning. Have you read those?

 

[The_Woof]

Well this is where it jumps off into the deep end of the philosophy pool. If we set aside what we know and believe in our modern society the parameters change. We dont have to go to a far flung part of the globe to find practices we would shocked at in modern society. For instance, in the 18th century, the children of Kings and Queens rarely chose their husband or wife. Most of the time, royal weddings were made to conclude a treaty between 2 kingdoms, usually a peace treaty. The husband and wife were usually very young. For example, Marie-Antoinette was 14 when she got married. We are talking Europe here - not Somalia. To pick another example we Americans have an emotional affinity to (given the holiday that was just celebrated Dec. 25) Mary, the mother of Jesus was (scholars believe) between 12 and 14 when she gave birth to Jesus. Would the God of the Hebrews as well as the God of Christian America have impregnated a 12 year old if that were biologically wrong?

While saying this, I can tell you that I am not promoting sexual activity among adolescents. The fact remains however that it is a very recent thing for us to want to see females age upward before they bear children (the proof of sexual activity) and while we say we desire that, we still are sending a mixed message even now. For example, we (on TV) promote the use of Gardisil. Lots of pretty athletic teen girls and their moms encouraging a vaccine that is only necessary in the first place if the female child is going to be engaging in sexual activity. Isnt the not so subtle indication embedded in the infomercial that we expect these children to have sex? Since the girls in this commercial are appearing with older adult women "posing" as their mothers, wouldnt that qualify as adults "knowing" or "allowing"? Where is the massive outcry about that?

I wonder if girls that age were more prepared to have children due to the hardship of life up until the mid 20th century or so?

 

[Glow]

Good question.

I dont think that human physiology has changed much, but maybe they were
more prepared emotionally and mentally?

 

[Spangle]

Spangle, bless you for being a foster mom. I think that is so wonderful.



Well one thing would have been to leave all the children that did not fit the category of the suspected abuse. Their was no emergency need to remove the boys or the infants for example. Their situations could have been evaluated with them in their homes. Which is what eventually happened anyway. Only it happened after much trauma and unnecessary money spent.

I could go drag up links about children having to be hospitalized, and other traumas that occured. Just the observations of CASA alone was so damning. Have you read those?

I don't need to read them. It is tramating when this happens. However, the parents must carry some of the blame for some of the unnecassary trauma. Let's keep in mind that these children where taught not to tell who their family members where. And to be afraid, be very, very afraid if something like this happens.

 

[Spangle]

I should point out that historically, females were married early, to keep them from having children out of wed lock. Women HAD to be married. A 'soild' female had little chance of marriage. The "age" was connected to when she would start to bleed. Which was the best guess for them to know she was old enough. Or in 'dangor' of breeding. <wink>

This is no longer an issue in our society. Women have other choices besides marriage. Women can be just as 'un-pure' as the men these days. And still find a mate.

I also should point out, that I know of no Bible scholars that believes that Mary, Mother of Jesus was 12 when she birthed him. Not saying that there might not be one out there that believe such. Just that I have never ran into such a theory. I have read and been involved in several discussions dealing with Mary. In reference to the actual words to discribe her, and the varous meanings to thsoe words. We tend to have different meanings for the same words. The whole process is highly interesting. Anyway, I don't see how one could use Mary as support that God of the Hebrews believed Girls as young as 12 should be having children.

 

[Glow]

I know of no Bible scholars that believes that Mary, Mother of Jesus was 12 when she birthed him. Not saying that there might not be one out there that believe such. Just that I have never ran into such a theory. I have read and been involved in several discussions dealing with Mary. In reference to the actual words to discribe her, and the varous meanings to thsoe words. We tend to have different meanings for the same words. The whole process is highly interesting.

Most of them speak of her becoming pregnant around the age of 12. The birth following almost a year later, at the age of thirteen or even fourteen. It would depend on her personal circumstances as these ages were just the "norms" of her time period. There are a vast amount of resources available to read on this. I will just post one that has a high degree of credibility in the minds of a great many people. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:

Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

The generally accepted timeline is that Mary was in the range of 12 - 14 when she gave birth to her first child. This would allow for the impregnation, the gestation (9 months) and the birth to occur within those ages. These figures are based on what was culturally common at that time.

This fits with where Marys "thinking" seemed to lie when we read her own words.


Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man".

Her statement would indicate she knew how the whole process worked, as she would be talking to and observing her friends, who were also getting betrothed and married and becoming pregnant. Just normal life for a Jewish girl of that time.

Anyway, I don't see how one could use Mary as support that God of the Hebrews believed Girls as young as 12 should be having children.

2 reasons.

Mary is used because she was a typical girl of her time period.

Mary was impregnated by God himself. The ultimate authority (in this situation) of what is right or wrong.

 

[Spangle]

Most of them speak of her becoming pregnant around the age of 12. The birth following almost a year later, at the age of thirteen or even fourteen. It would depend on her personal circumstances as these ages were just the "norms" of her time period. There are a vast amount of resources available to read on this. I will just post one that has a high degree of credibility in the minds of a great many people. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say:

Jewish maidens were considered marriageable at the age of twelve years and six months, though the actual age of the bride varied with circumstances.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

The generally accepted timeline is that Mary was in the range of 12 - 14 when she gave birth to her first child. This would allow for the impregnation, the gestation (9 months) and the birth to occur within those ages. These figures are based on what was culturally common at that time.

This fits with where Marys "thinking" seemed to lie when we read her own words.


Luke (1:34) tells us that she answered the angel announcing the birth of Jesus Christ: "how shall this be done, because I know not man".

Her statement would indicate she knew how the whole process worked, as she would be talking to and observing her friends, who were also getting betrothed and married and becoming pregnant. Just normal life for a Jewish girl of that time.



2 reasons.

Mary is used because she was a typical girl of her time period.

Mary was impregnated by God himself. The ultimate authority (in this situation) of what is right or wrong.

Sigh... Most? Again, that is an opinion.

We are speaking of Jewish customs, yet the site you link to isn't Jewish. It might be best if you check out what several groups have to say, before jumping on that "most".

Anyway. While young minors could be betrothed, which was considered married without the rights of intercourse, they were not married until they reached their majority. Which happened at the onset of puberty. Which for girls is expected at 13 and for boys at 14. Key word here is 'expected.' They are watching for the signs of puberty. For a girl, that can happen anywhere from 12 to 18 yrs of age.

Historically, girls didn't start their periods as early as the modern girls do. While some genetics plays a part, weight also plays a part. And of course, hormones being feed to our cows. But that is another story. So, the didn't have as many little piggies as they do now. So that 12, is on the real early side. As it, it happens, but don't expect it.

Now days, it can happen at 9 or earlier. God's plan? Hmmm.... These early starters do not have the proper bone structure for birthing. If it wasn't for modern medical help, they would die. and Yes, we have had girls that young get prego.

God's plan is for humans to use their brains.

 

[Glow]

Sigh... Most? Again, that is an opinion.

I didnt want to insult your intelligence by filling a post with line after line of links. That is why I used the friendlier, more casual, tactful word "most". I could fill the post with links if you want me too because the bottom line is history is recorded fact. The fact is that all throughout history the age at which girls marry has gone up and down according to other factors happening in their environment and society.

We are speaking of Jewish customs, yet the site you link to isn't Jewish. It might be best if you check out what several groups have to say, before jumping on that "most".

So the only historical references that can be accurate about a group of people have to come solely from that group of people?

If we use that reasoning, then we should let the FLDS tell us who they are and just accept it as fact. Same difference.

Since we both know that is flawed reasoning, whats left? It isnt going to be easy to find Jewish literature addressing anything concerning the birth of Jesus. Jews do not dwell on that.

We can go back to ancient Jewish history for a glimpse at everyday Jewish life though.

This is what the Catholic church in fact did. Did you look at the sources for their information?

Here it is. (I bolded the Jewish sources)

Our principal sources of information are:

(a) The Old Testament writings;
(b) the archæological discoveries made in Syria and Palestine;
(c) the Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian, and Canaanitish monuments;
(d) the New Testament writings;
(e) the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds; (f) comparative study of Semitic religions, customs, and institutions.
Treatises on Biblical Archeology by JARN (Vienna, 1817); ROSENMÜLLER (Leipzig, 1823-31); DE WETTE (Leipzig, 1864); EWALD (Göttingen, 1866); HANEBERG (Munich, 1869); ROSKEFF (Vienna, 1857); KINZLER (Stuttgart, 1884); SCHEGG (Freiburg, 1886).
For English readers the best and most available works are
KEIL, Manual of Biblical Arch ology (tr., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1887);
BISSELL, Biblical Antiquities (Philadelphia, 1888);
FENTON, Early Hebrew Life (London, 1880);
DAY, The Social Life of the Hebrews in the Semitic Series (New York, 1901);
TRUMBULL, The Blood Covenant;
ID., The Threshold Covenant;
ID., The Salt Covenant;
various articles in SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible;
KITTO, Biblical Cyclopedia;
VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible;
HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible;
and Jewish Encyclopedia.
The most recent and authoritative works on the subject, however, are
BENZIGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894);
NOWACK, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894);
BUHL, Die socialen Verhältnisse der Israeliten (Berlin, 1899), tr. into French by CINTRE (Paris, 1904);
LEVY, La famille dans l'antiquité israelite (Paris, 1905).
Of great value, especially for later Old Testament times, are also the classical works of
SCHÜRER, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols., 1898-1901), tr. from the 2nd ed. (5 vols., London and New York);
EDERSHEIM, The Rites and Worships of the Jews (New York, 1891);
ID., The Temple, its Ministry and Service (London, 1874);
ID., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London and New York).
From The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02548a.htm

If you would prefer, here is a secular source:

Under Judaism, boys could marry or make religious vows at 14-years-old and girls at 12-years-old, both only with parental permission, which parental permission was required until both boys or girls were 21-years-old ("Adult Age," McClintock and Strong Encyclopaedia).

and a Protestant one:

excerpts from my book, Biblical Companions, briefly addresses ancient, biblical marriage customs.
Ancient marriages were usually arranged between the oldest male family members within the same group or family clan (Genesis 27:46-28:2). This guaranteed the future existence of the overall group and preservation of culture and values. Girls were given in marriage when they were old enough to bear children, whereas men married when they either received their inheritance or obtained their own resources. It was also common for the groom to give a dowry, or purchase his wife from his future father-in-law. In the case of Jacob, since he evidently had no such dowry, he indentured himself to his father-in-law in exchange for his wives (Genesis 29:15-21). (Rushmore)
During the first century, however, it appears to have been the general rule that young people who were "of age" could arrange their own marriages. A girl was considered of age at twelve years and one day. The Jewish rabbis set the minimum age for marriage at twelve years for the girl, and thirteen years for the boy. Anciently in biblical times, girls often married at or shortly following puberty, and boys usually married sometime between puberty and their latter teen years.

Anyway. While young minors could be betrothed, which was considered married without the rights of intercourse, they were not married until they reached their majority. Which happened at the onset of puberty. Which for girls is expected at 13 and for boys at 14. Key word here is 'expected.' They are watching for the signs of puberty. For a girl, that can happen anywhere from 12 to 18 yrs of age.

That is correct. Marriage at the age of 12 was indeed possible.

Historically, girls didn't start their periods as early as the modern girls do.

Here is a link you might enjoy reading

http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm

Basically it explains that it is genetics that controls menarche and other factors (diet, weight etc.) just adjust the dial up and down.

While some genetics plays a part, weight also plays a part. And of course, hormones being feed to our cows. But that is another story. So, the didn't have as many little piggies as they do now. So that 12, is on the real early side. As it, it happens, but don't expect it.

Now days, it can happen at 9 or earlier. God's plan? Hmmm.... These early starters do not have the proper bone structure for birthing. If it wasn't for modern medical help, they would die. and Yes, we have had girls that young get prego.

God's plan is for humans to use their brains.

Very true! I dont know anyone in their right mind that would say any different. But we are not talking about the outside parameters we are talking about simple human biology down through time. And while that can be impacted it doesnt change dramatically.

 

[Spangle]

I didnt want to insult your intelligence by filling a post with line after line of links. That is why I used the friendlier, more casual, tactful word "most". I could fill the post with links if you want me too because the bottom line is history is recorded fact. The fact is that all throughout history the age at which girls marry has gone up and down according to other factors happening in their environment and society.

So you think to do so now??



So the only historical references that can be accurate about a group of people have to come solely from that group of people? ????

If we use that reasoning, then we should let the FLDS tell us who they are and just accept it as fact. Same difference. LOL! Not even. I'm clueless to how you can reach that. What you quoted from , wasn't even around to 'witness' what we are talking about.

Since we both know that is flawed reasoning, whats left? It isnt going to be easy to find Jewish literature addressing anything concerning the birth of Jesus. Jews do not dwell on that.

??? The issue is the idea that most Hebrew girls marry at the age of 12. The Hebrew documents do not supprt that theory. That one group of scholars want to say that Mary was 12, isn't the Jew's problem. It does not reflect on Mary nor on Jesus, just on those scholars. <shrug> Another words, it doesn't matter what the Jews believe about Jesus.

We can go back to ancient Jewish history for a glimpse at everyday Jewish life though. Which is what I pointed out to do, and you claim.. well.. I guess you have forgotten all ready.

This is what the Catholic church in fact did. Did you look at the sources for their information? Yes I did. As I said, it was one group, 1 source. Which does not make "most". Not even close. I tried to be polite about it, by pointing out the logical reasons your 'most' was in error. Your "most" missed it, because they failed to realize that a female menses doesn't automaticlly happen at age of 12. If I was guessing, I would say they are trying to make a peg fit a whole. Something that 'most' has done more then once. Which is why it's a good idea to read many different theorys and use a little personal Logic that God gave us.
Here it is. (I bolded the Jewish sources)

Our principal sources of information are:

(a) The Old Testament writings;
(b) the archæological discoveries made in Syria and Palestine;
(c) the Assyro-Babylonian, Egyptian, and Canaanitish monuments;
(d) the New Testament writings;
(e) the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and of the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds; (f) comparative study of Semitic religions, customs, and institutions.
Treatises on Biblical Archeology by JARN (Vienna, 1817); ROSENMÜLLER (Leipzig, 1823-31); DE WETTE (Leipzig, 1864); EWALD (Göttingen, 1866); HANEBERG (Munich, 1869); ROSKEFF (Vienna, 1857); KINZLER (Stuttgart, 1884); SCHEGG (Freiburg, 1886).
For English readers the best and most available works are
KEIL, Manual of Biblical Arch ology (tr., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1887);
BISSELL, Biblical Antiquities (Philadelphia, 1888);
FENTON, Early Hebrew Life (London, 1880);
DAY, The Social Life of the Hebrews in the Semitic Series (New York, 1901);
TRUMBULL, The Blood Covenant;
ID., The Threshold Covenant;
ID., The Salt Covenant;
various articles in SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible;
KITTO, Biblical Cyclopedia;
VIGOUROUX, Dict. de la Bible;
HASTINGS, Dict. of the Bible;
and Jewish Encyclopedia.
The most recent and authoritative works on the subject, however, are
BENZIGER, Hebräische Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894);
NOWACK, Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie (Freiburg im Br., 1894);
BUHL, Die socialen Verhältnisse der Israeliten (Berlin, 1899), tr. into French by CINTRE (Paris, 1904);
LEVY, La famille dans l'antiquité israelite (Paris, 1905).
Of great value, especially for later Old Testament times, are also the classical works of
SCHÜRER, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols., 1898-1901), tr. from the 2nd ed. (5 vols., London and New York);
EDERSHEIM, The Rites and Worships of the Jews (New York, 1891);
ID., The Temple, its Ministry and Service (London, 1874);
ID., Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (London and New York).
From The 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02548a.htm

If you would prefer, here is a secular source:

Under Judaism, boys could marry or make religious vows at 14-years-old and girls at 12-years-old, both only with parental permission, which parental permission was required until both boys or girls were 21-years-old ("Adult Age," McClintock and Strong Encyclopaedia).

and a Protestant one:

excerpts from my book, Biblical Companions, briefly addresses ancient, biblical marriage customs.
Ancient marriages were usually arranged between the oldest male family members within the same group or family clan (Genesis 27:46-28:2). This guaranteed the future existence of the overall group and preservation of culture and values. Girls were given in marriage when they were old enough to bear children, whereas men married when they either received their inheritance or obtained their own resources. It was also common for the groom to give a dowry, or purchase his wife from his future father-in-law. In the case of Jacob, since he evidently had no such dowry, he indentured himself to his father-in-law in exchange for his wives (Genesis 29:15-21). (Rushmore)
During the first century, however, it appears to have been the general rule that young people who were "of age" could arrange their own marriages. A girl was considered of age at twelve years and one day. The Jewish rabbis set the minimum age for marriage at twelve years for the girl, and thirteen years for the boy. Anciently in biblical times, girls often married at or shortly following puberty, and boys usually married sometime between puberty and their latter teen years.

That sentence that I underlined, does that just fly over your head?? You gave me a whole buch of references, but are you sure they back you up.. or me??


That is correct. Marriage at the age of 12 was indeed possible.

Ah.. But that wasn't the issue. As I also noted it's possible. The issue is when it's claimed that it's standard practice.




Here is a link you might enjoy reading

http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm

Basically it explains that it is genetics that controls menarche and other factors (diet, weight etc.) just adjust the dial up and down.

Cool, I'm guessing you looked that up to verify my statements. <grin> It's not just an age thing.



Very true! I dont know anyone in their right mind that would say any different. But we are not talking about the outside parameters we are talking about simple human biology down through time. And while that can be impacted it doesnt change dramatically.

I added comments in red. Like I said, there are many scholars out there. Not just the Catholic ones. To become a scholar, it doesn't mean repeating what someone else has decided. It means researching and making their own personal determination. A scholar who knows about female puberty would have caught what your 'most' scholars did not. That it's being mean or cutting them down. All of us tend to 'not see' what we do not understand. To not understand it's importants. How can we understand the importance, if we don't understand 'it."

It is easy to understand why a male wouldn't catch that the age of 12 is the possible beginning. The time to be watching, etc. The writings are clear, it's connected to actual puberty. You bring up that I'm just using Jewish writings. Aghm.. No, I back up such things with other cultures of the same time period and what they say. It's actuall a very common practice to believe that the female was marriageable based upon when she started her menses. Some cultures would throw partys and have women hood celebrations. The Hebrews are pretty much following trible norms that other groups followed. Such open groups would also know that not all girls started their menses at the age of 12 automatically. But our culture has changed greatly over time. Women things like that were not to be discussed. Table legs at one point had to be covered, because they were shocking to see. Chicken breast were not served at a formal dinner.. Just so no one made the mistake of saying the word breast.

Modern scholars are not always going to agree with what has been believed. That is because they have more resources available to them. This includes scholars who are Catholic. Even modern Catholic scholars who are Priest, realize that the Priest in the past had somewhat limited knowledge on certain things. And they were also without modern resources. It's all good in the scholar world. They are happy in the books, looking forward to their next find. <shrug>

Basically, this is a good example of how interpretations could end up, mixed up. Tee hee... Some folks out there think it's some sort of grand conspiracy. But many times it's just simple stuff that no one noticed it's import.

BTW: If we are discussing what God's plan is... let's remember that originally, folks were much older when they started becoming parents. Gosh I would be consider to young, we all would. Tee hee

 

[Glow]

I added comments in red.

Yes. I see that you did. I am just going to let them go because I dont want to belabor the obvious and Im not big on "shrugs" and "tee-hees" or passive aggressive insinuations that things are "flying over my head". I assure you that my not responding by no means infers things have "gone over my head" but rather, is my attempt to stay on topic.

This discussion you and I have been having centers around the social relevance (or lack of) and historical validity of girls becoming mothers at young ages and how society views that, in various times and cultures, through its moral filter.

I will go ahead and reply to the thoughts in your post below.

Like I said, there are many scholars out there. Not just the Catholic ones.

Agreed

To become a scholar, it doesn't mean repeating what someone else has decided. It means researching and making their own personal determination.

No. If a person does research and forms their own "personal determination" (which is really no more than just their own opinion) it remains just that...a personal opinion. Scholars on the other hand have the goal and indeed the duty to process the factual information in front of them in the form of educating others...regardless of what their personal opinion of the facts are.

A scholar who knows about female puberty would have caught what your 'most' scholars did not. That it's being mean or cutting them down.

Ok, so who is this scholar that would "know" about female puberty? What precisely would they have "caught" that other scholars didnt? Precisely what is being done that is "mean" and who is the "them" that is getting "cut down"?

All of us tend to 'not see' what we do not understand. To not understand it's importants. How can we understand the importance, if we don't understand 'it."

You are right, that is a basic human flaw that we do tend towards, not seeing what we dont understand. That is why the best and brightest among us have always been those who are able to step outside the narrow confines of that type of thinking and look at situations on a more "global" level.

It is easy to understand why a male wouldn't catch that the age of 12 is the possible beginning. The time to be watching, etc. The writings are clear, it's connected to actual puberty. You bring up that I'm just using Jewish writings. Aghm.. No, I back up such things with other cultures of the same time period and what they say.

Actually I never said that at all. And you havent backed up anything with a link or a source. You have been giving me your impressions and I have been listening and responding.

It's actuall a very common practice to believe that the female was marriageable based upon when she started her menses. Some cultures would throw partys and have women hood celebrations. The Hebrews are pretty much following trible norms that other groups followed. Such open groups would also know that not all girls started their menses at the age of 12 automatically.

Agreed. Or to over simplify, its like a garden. You get your first fruits and then your main crop and lastly a few late bloomers. It works that way with people too. Babies have a median growth curve that gets charted at their well baby visits with their pediatrician. Most babies fall in the middle percentile but there are always those that fall above and below. Likewise with girls (and boys for that matter)where puberty is concerned.

But our culture has changed greatly over time. Women things like that were not to be discussed. Table legs at one point had to be covered, because they were shocking to see. Chicken breast were not served at a formal dinner.. Just so no one made the mistake of saying the word breast.

Ok now it seems like you have jumped from ancient Israel to Victorian times? Chicken didnt really figure greatly into the Jews diet did it?

Modern scholars are not always going to agree with what has been believed. That is because they have more resources available to them. This includes scholars who are Catholic. Even modern Catholic scholars who are Priest, realize that the Priest in the past had somewhat limited knowledge on certain things. And they were also without modern resources. It's all good in the scholar world. They are happy in the books, looking forward to their next find. <shrug>

Thats true. Scholars once thought the world was flat. More resources being available has proved that to be incorrect. There is however a tremendous base of knowledge to be found in historical resources and we want to be careful to comb through it rather than be cavalierly dismissive of it.

Basically, this is a good example of how interpretations could end up, mixed up. Tee hee... Some folks out there think it's some sort of grand conspiracy. But many times it's just simple stuff that no one noticed it's import.

BTW: If we are discussing what God's plan is... let's remember that originally, folks were much older when they started becoming parents. Gosh I would be consider to young, we all would. Tee hee

I didnt think this was a discussion of Gods plan so much as it was an attempt to separate out what we find in our modern world very repugnant (a young teenager being married) from what is just a reality be it historically or currently. I want to be very clear that I do not promote or approve of the FLDS behavoir. I am attempting to understand it - not condoning it - there is a difference.

 

[Spangle]

ETA: I clipped some of it, to make it a shorter chat.

No. If a person does research and forms their own "personal determination" (which is really no more than just their own opinion) it remains just that...a personal opinion. Scholars on the other hand have the goal and indeed the duty to process the factual information in front of them in the form of educating others...regardless of what their personal opinion of the facts are.


A scholar's statements are still just opinion. Just like everyone else, he/she has to be able to prove their opinion. The only difference is if that opinion is in/about a subject that the person has done tons of scholarly research, it's assumed that the scholar is more likely correct or knows what they are talking about. So folks don't always demand they 'prove' their opinion.

You know what they say about 'assume.'....

A scholar's opinion should be treated like anyone elses, by folk who are serious about wanting to know. The scholar's opinion can be used as a guide book to track down things and help with thoughts. But should never be considered infallible.

We should all be like scholars.

Actually I never said that at all. And you havent backed up anything with a link or a source. You have been giving me your impressions and I have been listening and responding.


I didn't need to. You was able to supply the links just fine. I figured 1 of several things would happen. Either you would want to prove me wrong, so would go on such a search. Be interested in my theory's and head out to search the possibilities. Or be totally dis-interested in anyone elses theory's and would have ignored it all together.. except to argure that you was right..

The first two possibles are fine. The last one.. is a time waster. Your no time waster. <wink> I didn't think you was, considering your a member of a sleuthing web site.

And generally folks don't look at others research and 'believe it.' But they will believe their own research. If you found the link, it is 'yours' and your more likely to trust it.

Ok now it seems like you have jumped from ancient Israel to Victorian times? Chicken didnt really figure greatly into the Jews diet did it?


Are you being obtuse? The statement was a very simple way to show that culture, times, etc.. can limit even scholars ablity to learn things of import to their research.

Thats true. Scholars once thought the world was flat. More resources being available has proved that to be incorrect. There is however a tremendous base of knowledge to be found in historical resources and we want to be careful to comb through it rather than be cavalierly dismissive of it.


Yep, you got it.



I didnt think this was a discussion of Gods plan so much as it was an attempt to separate out what we find in our modern world very repugnant (a young teenager being married) from what is just a reality be it historically or currently. I want to be very clear that I do not promote or approve of the FLDS behavoir. I am attempting to understand it - not condoning it - there is a difference.

I understand and we did discuss that historical issue. Things are different now. People live longer, etc. Women don't have to get married. And don't have to be virgins when married, etc. They can hold just about any job a Man can.

If your trying to attempt to understand why THEY are making their girls do it.. It's simple. If you want to have many wives, you have to raise the women to accept being 1 of many wives. Given a choice, a women wouldn't always want to accept such. Not when she can choose not to be a wife at all and do many other things. Marring them young, ensures they are 'enslaved' into the system before they are old enough to make their own choices. They will most likely reproduce before they are old enough to leave on their own. A young mother is less likely to leave.

This wife swapping is a rather modern twist the Jefferys are doing. Where they can take the man's wives and children away, and give them to another man. It keeps the men in line. IT shows his power in the other men's lives. HE is GAWD, more or less. Everyone else has to obey. If a man loves his wives and children.. he will do his best not to lose them to someone who might not love them. Most likely will not.

Everyone is intermarried and 'kin'. Hence "family". Think about the Anthonys.....

 

[Glow]

And generally folks don't look at others research and 'believe it.' But they will believe their own research. If you found the link, it is 'yours' and your more likely to trust it.

If "folks" generally did that, what a sad thing it would be. I find that generalization to be incorrect of most posters here. People all come to a discussion with their own prejudices in place. The ability to shift position in light of new knowledge is a hallmark of intelligence. We see people do that all the time here. If your experience is that people here base their beliefs not on facts but rather on an emotional attachment to links they find on the internet, we must not be posting on the same threads. I think posters here do a lot better than that.

Are you being obtuse? The statement was a very simple way to show that culture, times, etc.. can limit even scholars ablity to learn things of import to their research.

Ok, that is in the same category as the "shrugs" and "tee-hees" and insinuations that things are "flying over my head" that I mentioned earlier. If you keep scrolling through the O's where you found that word obtuse? You will find another O word....opaque.

Allow me to use it in a sentence.

I have noticed that when it is hard to keep up the intellectual weight of a position, name calling while rather opaque in nature, is a frequent fall back position.

Wouldnt having a conversation here minus the random inference of negativity be good? I think so!

If your trying to attempt to understand why THEY are making their girls do it.. It's simple. If you want to have many wives, you have to raise the women to accept being 1 of many wives.

I am not attempting to understand why they do it. I have taken the time to research and find out why they do it.

It has its roots in the polygamy of the Old Testament. God told Abraham he would make him the forebearer of a mighty nation. The quickest way to do that would of course would involve a ratio of many females to one male. Thus the concept of polygamy was practiced and the Jewish nation was born.

The FLDS harken back to that in their thinking.

This wife swapping is a rather modern twist the Jefferys are doing. Where they can take the man's wives and children away, and give them to another man. It keeps the men in line. IT shows his power in the other men's lives. HE is GAWD, more or less. Everyone else has to obey. If a man loves his wives and children.. he will do his best not to lose them to someone who might not love them. Most likely will not.

Everyone is intermarried and 'kin'. Hence "family". Think about the Anthonys.....

I dont understand the reference to the Anthonys anymore than I understood your quantum leap from Jewish law to the Victorian dinner table in your last post but at the risk of having you hit the dictionary for another big word to call me I will just let it go....I see no need to think about the Anthonys on the FLDS thread.

So....as far as your other statement above. I dont know who the Jefferys are, I am assuming you mean the Jeffs? If I have that wrong , I apologize.

Again, it all goes back to the FLDS distorted view of scripture. They think they are practicing their form of the Bibles concept of brother-in-law marriage. That is totally different than "wife swappping".

"Wife swapping" as you put it is a western, modern concept and would be totally foreign to the thinking of the FLDS people, men and women.