Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Is This Really Relevant or even Interesting

A wife who is unhappy. Absolutely nothing new there, happens every day, in every type of marriage. A father who is abusive, hmmmmm like we never heard of this before. Marriages that don't work and the wife is complaining,,, wow like that never happened before. They get on TV and think that this is something special. It's not. They own property and have money , woooo, let's all get excited. Nothing new going on here. They are a secretive religious sect , like we have never heard of this before. An older man tries his luck with a younger women, happens every way of every day, with results that sometimes work and sometimes not. This stuff is not unusual , happens in everyday life everywhere.


ATAR_i said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

Yeah, but.....

Her dad had four wives and molested his little girls.

Her wedding night was spent with a man she barely knew, with her sister in his bed rubbing his back while she was deflowered.

This is part of the religion - the secrecy, the wedding, the multiple wives (and NO, that's not everyday for most everyone), the control.

HO hum, you got arrested because you didn't obey your husband (HELLO - NOT ORDINARY).

So, you can wish that it's ordinary - BUT IT'S NOT. A rape of infants in Africa (by men whom have AIDS) is more salacious than that of a drunken middle aged woman. The molestation of a catholic boys by their priests are not just ordinary molestations when they come with cover ups and scandals.

So NO, it's not just ordinary hum drum - it's different. It comes with a lot more 'stuff'. More wives, more control, police corruption, religious control, the whole kahuna.

fundy said...

Come on , I know of several men in and around CC who are now serving time for child molestation. This is not something new. Your being over reactive and unrealistic. No they are really out of business in CC. ITS over. Never be that way again. And once they sell the property to outsiders it will look like any other small town. If you know of someone breaking the law you need to call the sheriff and turn them in , instead of just complaining.

ATAR_i said...

Am I being over-reactive - or are you hiding something.

You've started three new threads since I posted the initial article and movie. You are trying to bury the article and the movie - why?

Because even to you, who wants to minimilize it - you can't. You can't make the impact smaller - trying to say how all fundy women are better, how it's irrelevant, and how it was a one time thing, or that it's ho hum, hum drum only make you look even more desperate to supress the information.


Because it is a big deal - EVEN TO YOU.

And while we're on the subject of unrealistic your generalization of a whole bunch of women based on their religion (i.e. they're better wives) is a gross example of unrealistic. I think it's interesting that you're exact phrase was

"You have a women that if you treat her right she will stand bye her man." I'd say that's an interesting little mistake you made there.

fundy said...

I did'nt read the article or pay any attention to it. Neither did I see your movie. I did'nt pay any attention what so ever to your post nor do I care to know what is in it. It looked boring and uninteresting. Same old stuff, the man is taking the blame for everything, pretty common complaint both from the fundy world and the outside. BORING Inacurate, biased, typical press hype ... and nonsense. And so is your point of view.

onthestreet said...

Atari quoting Fundy: "You have a women that if you treat her right she will stand bye her man." I'd say that's an interesting little mistake you made there.
3/09/2006 12:19 AM

STREET's Reply: Ladies, Ladies!!! Kissy Kissy, not fisty fisty. I know of a large group of women who are loving the Prophet Warren, who talk of and treat gentile or outside women as equals. I saw it every day that they were working among the gentiles, how they loved them, and were so loved back. I am a witness of that. These are the ultimate of a classy woman. They love their fellow creatures, creations of God, and treat them with a great deal of dignity.

It is the assailants who come barging into their towns with cameras and accusations that they (again, in a very classy way) just walk away from, hoping that they will overcome their fears and abuses that they have witnessed only in their own cities and private dwellings. Their egos having been so irked and primed, these outsiders are just thrusting and screeching out to be heard and seen, having been neglect and abused so much in their own personal lives.

The world has been witness to how FLDS women react when they are so assailed from the outside. They just leave the nasty scene, and with a great deal of honor and dignity.

ATAR_i said...

It was really classy when they shut the doors in Laurenes face when she told them that was the home she was raised in (oh and the windows too).

and the fundy that screamed 'GO TO HELL' - she was a real gem - TOTALLY CLASSY

And, how can you know what the story is about unless you read it, or watch the movie - you psychic or something. No - but you've already decided it's bad, and spammed the blog - pretty pathetic and desperate.

fundy said...

Your always going to have women in a relationship or marriage that it does'nt work for them. No new news here, very old story. And then you have people complaining about child abuse. Complaining does'nt get the job done, calling the sheriff does. And yes there are men in jail in and around CC just for that reason. The fault is they don't call the right people. They only complain in forums like this.
When they should have been on the phone to the law. Your bad.
The media has only one outlet, people who have had problems with the FLDS and in their bias only show the bad part. They have a pre-disposed idea of it and that's all you see. Certainly any relligion or group are going to have a percentage of problems, and to concentrate all your media reports on them give an unbalanced view of things. There is absolutely nothing new here. Only biased media reporting. Your falling for it , like just about everybody else. These problems are the same for all types of people. The LDS will also tell a wife to leave her husband, but does the press cover it???? NOOOOOOOOO,,,,Not at all.
I personally know of problem in an LDS ward up north a brother was molesting children from his Sunday class room he taught. DId it ever hit the press?? NO. Did the ward get told of the problem? Not really. Did the bishop call the sheriff? NO. The bishop forgave him his sins and the person had it all covered up , thanks LDS. Not proper at all. This is not a new problem.......

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i: 3/09/2006 7:42 AM

STREET’s Reply: Now, now, get some rest. I know you’re over-stressed and can’t handle so much information in one day. Take a month off and ponder it. More if you need. Laurene became an outsider and brought much media abuse into the community. Furthermore, like I’ve been saying all along, not all in CC are classy, or saints. They Prophet told them so, and left them to themselves, yes? So, is it spam to respond to the likes of you? You may be right. Now, go lay down and get some shut eye, and maybe a good stiff drink.

ATAR_i said...

Fundy - what if someone Told the leaders what happened in Sunday School, and they just moved him to a different class.

What if they told the police, and the police did nothing - other than escort the child to a mental institution ( would make the news) - like your stuff has.


And BTW I'm just dandy - no need for a rest - interesting patronizing comments though.

mugwump said...

I think it would be interesting to have a comparison report done by an independent reporting agency, as related to wife beatings, child molestation, bigamy or philandry and other such commonally and casually committed incidents. The comparison could be between citizens of a normal central Texas Town of 10,000, or less and a community of the same size under the FLDS banner of heaven.

In all probability, if every incident was reported to a responsible law enforcement agency and every citizen guaranteed justice, there is much less frequency of these crimes in the Texas average community than in those under FLDS control.

When your priesthood is a law unto itself, all members of the local law enforcement agency, which is charged with protecting all the citizens within its jurisdiction, are members of the Imperial Priesthood and women and children are chattel, who is going to get the protection?

There is a gross double standard represented here.

Those of us on the outside are very interested in seeing the women and children receive the same protection under the law as do the inerrant priesthood.

Would the FLDS leadership allow such a study? NO, because it would expose the priesthood's vile behavior, and they will never allow a study to be made that would give unbiased reports. Not only that, but the women and children are taught to fear and not to trust anyone from outside their closed society. A basic tenant of their faith is that the wife cannot achieve heaven without a husband to pull her into paradise. They have no free will. Without the husband the wife is destined for hell. They are virtual slaves to a system that expects them to breed and bare children, obey their husbands without question and to "be sweet" even in the face of brutality.

Anonymous said...

Mugwump, I would like to see such a study myself. I believe you would be surprised by the results. I believe there is a greater percentage of aberrant behavior in a typical Texas town than there is in CC/Hildale, that is, unless Texas is different than most small towns in Utah and Arizona. (Think: Fredonia, here)

Now, without that study, we are all just guessing here. But be careful in your judgment.

fttc said...

I do not wish to take away from the point you make about conroling others. However, we see the results of this more apparent in women and children because of their inherent weaker natures. To suppose that the abuse is strictly carried out against the women and children is not factual. There are many cases where the women have had more control over the men than vice versa. The women get their control by using the 'priesthood' just like the men do. They 'will tell the prophet' if such and such is not done. There are men as frightened by their wives as these 'abused wives' are by the men.

With your statements about the men and mine about the women it appears that we have condemned the entire community. Not really. As Fundy has tried to point out: these reports that get into the news are not the norm in CC/Hildale. That there may be more of it per capita than another US town of equal population may be true. That still does not make it the norm. I doubt it would be much greater if it is. That there have been abuses is undeniable. That the perpetrators should be punished is a given. That there are victims is heartbreaking.

Let's not forget that there are many polygamists even in the FLDS who are very good parents. They love their children and are doing the best for them that they can. Because they live a lifestyle that many consider unacceptable does not make them evil people. And yes I do remember that polygamy is against the law.

ATAR_i said...

I don't think arranged marriage predisposes couples to being less happy necessarily.

Polygamy, might work for some, but I think that it just absolutely doesn't work for others.

Child abuse - natural parents can be sexually abusive to their children, but adults who become step parents are more likely to abuse - so I guess if you are having more divorce (or change) in that area - you are more likely to fall into that situation.

Then you have another quandry - if a father marries his stepdaughter who is underage - most would consider that to be a sexually innappropriate relationship - however - I doubt it would be classified as such in FLDS.

Most would consider it sexual misconduct for an adult to have sex with a girl under 18, but I don't believe all FLDS feel that way.

So - I think any study of behaviors - would have to be very objective. And without such a study - I don't think any generalizations could be accurate.

1. how old were you when you first had a sexual relationship?
2. were you married?
3. how old was your partner?
4. were you related to your partner?
5. if so, how were you related?
6. did you want to get married?
7. if no, were you forced to get married?

Studies are interesting - because things are not always as you expected - sometimes they're worse - sometimes better.

It would be interesting - but I agree with the poster who stated that it will probably never happen - so there's no point trying to argue the validity of it - we just CAN'T know.

mugwump said...

I don't disagree with conclusions that such a study is virtually an improbability. I do concur that the re-assignment of wives and family is an open ivitation for all sorts of illicit behavior. WJ's acts of destroying the family is perverted. Those women who are being swapped should rebel against the absurdity of the situation. Were it my child that was being raped by the prophet or his cadre of sex maniacs I would defend my child to the death, were it required. I don't think WJ would want to mess with my family.

I really do not think of myself as a prude. I do believe that sexual education is the duty of the home.

Too often sex is discussed only in whispers and only when those having the discussion think that they are in private, beyond the observation of responsible parents. Mothers should be responsible for primary education of daughters, fathers for sons.

Frank truth, not myths assist the responsible parent in gaining the trust of the child. Questions should be answered truthfully as the child's ability to understand grows. Boys should feel free to ask their mothers questions as should daughters ask fathers.

Love should always be the motivating factor in instructing children, never eros or lust.

ATAR_i said...

Yes, I agree.

onthestreet said...

You all make some good points. You speak of a double-standard there, and the comparing of abuses. Absolutely. No argument there. This is the very reason the Prophet left them, with this to ponder:

"You people don't deserve a prophet".

Now Tarry, regarding what you said about a prophet:


The Prophet Warren does like those before him did, back to Joseph and Jesus: The bless, but the blessing is conditional on faithfulness, on keeping their vow. Any marriage is the same. The judge, pastor, or Vegas crackpot gives the blessing, but YOU are the guarantee of its success (or failure). That is in perfect accordance to the bahavior of GOD HIMSELF: He blesses us, and then leaves us to ourselves. He doesn't meddle. He just carries out the consequences when you destroy your own unions.


onthestreet said...

Typo (last paragraph): "The bless" should be: "To bless". Talk about perfection!!!

ATAR_i said...

I am calling into question the marriages that warren has created and destroyed.

Firstly, I question his motivations for the unions he did allow.

Secondly, I question his motivations for the unions he tore apart.

What God has put together - let no man put assunder

I would be very curious about what happened when someone who had a marriage lost it. When they were told, 'you've been kicked out'. How were the wives notified - what were they told?

I realize each and every situation is extremely different - but if someone could shed some light on how the process works I would be grateful.

Anonymous said...

If Warren Jeffs is a prophet then the Mississippi River runs in a northerly direction and the Nile runs southward, the Pacific is on our east coast and the Indian Ocean is on our west coast. The Gulf of Mexico has been replaced by the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea has become salty. Salmon go to sea to spawn and catfish climb trees. Elephants water ski and Cardinals are navy blue, fly upside down and backward while wearing union suits and cowboy boots.

And that is only a part of how ridiculous your professions that WJ is a man of principle, dignity, and high moral standards. To quote a most used phrase, your prophet is only for profit, self gratification and perverted sexual drives.

ATAR_i said...

3:39 have we met?

Anonymous said...

Are you stating this from stuff youve read in the papers I wonder?

ATAR_i said...

who are you asking?

Anonymous said...


We have met many times, just not face to face.

Anon. 3/11 3:39

ATAR_i said...

I wish you had a nickname - even one that you just write at the bottom - so I could know which anonymous you were.

Would you consider it?

Anonymous said...

OK Atar_i. Let's call me R.C.NEHI

ATAR_i said...

OK, now sign your posts with r.c. nehi - that way I know it's you. Can you tell me what we discussed before - or something about you.

Anonymous said...


You and I are usually on the same side of an argument. We both think ots is a little deranged and much mis-led. When I post my blog pen name you immediately recognize it. Sometimes there are issues I don't care to discuss and people I want no association with so I use Annon. Maybe the practice is hypocritical, but there are some folks beyond reason. I know their point of view, they know mine and I won't be a part of their continuing idiocy.


ATAR_i said...

Gotcha, there was something about you - so I had to ask.

Now I'm totally curious - if you want - email and let me know your blog nic if you want to.

I'm too curious for my own good! (ots will have a field day with that - oh well).

onthestreet said...

NONNY Said (3/11/2006 3:39 PM):
And that is only a part of how ridiculous your professions that WJ is a man of principle, dignity, and high moral standards. To quote a most used phrase, your prophet is only for profit, self gratification and perverted sexual drives.

STREET’s Reply: Yes, He certainly is. You are so correct that he is “profitable”, even to us all, once you come to know the truth, and not what you have heard through the frenzies of media and public opinion. Christ Himself was so profitable to us all, the Profit, and yet through the frenzy of public opinion and political maneuvering, they were convinced to “CRUCFY him”, “and let the curse be upon us and upon our children, and our children’s children forever”. So it is, and look what history bears out. We are now at the gate of the 1,000 year millennium, and because of your choice, where will you be. Then, after the 1,000 year reign of glory, cometh your eternal judgement. Then what!!! The
frenzie itself proceeds out of self-gratification and sexual perversion. You have now exposed yourself.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (3/11/2006 9:54 AM):
I am calling into question the marriages that warren has created and destroyed. Firstly, I question his motivations for the unions he did allow. Secondly, I question his motivations for the unions he tore apart.
What God has put together - let no man put asunder. I realize each and every situation is extremely different - but if someone could shed some light on how the process works I would be grateful.

STREET’s Reply: See, you need more light, as you have just confessed. “What God has put together, let no man put asunder”, and the breaking of one’s vow of purity puts that union asunder, the husband himself, or the wife, or both: NOT THE PROPHET. He wasn’t even there when they broke their vow. Blaming him is tantamount to blaming any preacher who seals unions when those marriages fail. Yah, right. Go blame the preacher! See how stupid that is?

Anonymous said...

Dream on lil' dreamer, dream on.

You ain't nothin' but a hound dog, CROCKIN' all the time.

Don't worry about ots, he ain't in your league. He don't even know where the field of play is, or the game time either.

Dream - - - Dream-Dream-Dream


ATAR_i said...

Your missing my point OTS

Why does warren put certain couples together?

Why does he take certain couples apart?

I think some of the unions have more to do with money and power than any lofty religious rationale or impurity.

If you would like to walk me through warrens thought process on putting a couple together - or tearing a couple apart it would be informative.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said... Your missing my point OTS. Why does warren put certain couples together? Why does
he take certain couples apart? I think some of the unions have more to do with money and power than any lofty religious rationale or impurity. If you would like to walk me through warrens thought process on putting a couple together - or tearing a couple apart it would be informative. 3/13/2006 7:50 PM

STREET’s Reply: Nothing missed. Just feeding you milk instead of meat. Don’t want you croak more than you already have. The FLDS is a religious community that believes in daily revelation, whether you do or not, and tries to live their daily lives so as to be worthy for such daily light from above, in our marriages and everything else. Whether you do or not, WE DO. This is why the Prophet puts certain couples together: God reveals it. As for the putting asunder, the couples do that themselves, one or both, by breaking the vow. A contract always requires two or more parties, and if one party breaks it, it is broken, the same as when anyone in the family breaks a dish. It’s not the Prophet’s fault when a dish or a marriage is broken.

See? So what you “think” is immaterial. Certainly, some outside unions, without God, have to do with money and power, and that’s the premise from which you come. Just because you have “no lofty religious rationale” does not mean that the whole world is just as depraved. That is the psychology of a true ignoramus, which can NEVER be informed.

Anonymous said...

Warren's interest is in power not in effect. He couldn't care less about the outcome of his insane acts. All his lemings are pawns in his game of I'ma 'big man' and ots is still working on his merit badge in his fruitless attempt to become a pawn.


ATAR_i said...

OTS - Based on your answer I'm guessing you have no idea how he decides who to put together, and who to tear apart either.

Does anyone know if warren favors rewarding financial contributions with wives? (or does it have nothing to do with that)

Anyone in FLDS What would you say are his motivations for putting couples together? (I'm not asking about how it was done pre-warren - this is strictly a w jeffs question).

onthestreet said...

One's finances or gifts of industry are offerings, as commanded by the Lord, as much so as the gifts of the spirit. The gospel excludes no dimension of one's gifts or offerings.

The motivations are based on one's possession of the Spirit of God sufficiently to come forth with such offerings of the spirit, soul, mind, and body, not just physical or bodily offerings, and by revelation to such.

ATAR_i said...

I'm waiting for an answer from someone who actually has information - you have platitudes and geocities websites. I think I'll wait for information from someone in the crick who was/is more in 'the know.

onthestreet said...

Finances are offerings, as the Lord commands, as much so as gifts and offerings of the spirit, the soul, and the mind. The Gospel of Christ excludes nothing. I hope that helps.

Faithful Woman said...

It was spoken in work meeting that if the elders wanted blessings they should show up to the work projects and sign the roll sheets.

There are those who have left, that said that yes money did affect if they got new wives or not. But not all. I think it has to do with who is related to whom on the totem pole. The highter up the more wives. And the politics are in effect too. wj has been known to use wives as bribes to gain loyalty. he tried to buy Winston off with wives, and at least one of his close associates.

It ties a man down and almost compels loyalty. Where a man may have packed up and left, he now has more eggs on his plate to roll around if he tries any sudden moves.

onthestreet said...

God is no respector of persons. The same applies to his Prophet, totem poll or not. It has to do with a combination of capabilities and compatibilities, as they were offered by the man and revealed by the Lord to the Prophet, and He has many ways to reveal it.

onthestreet said...

Capabilities and compatibilites jive between people who made covenants before they were born, and the Lord shows him who those people are. The nitpicker is not capable, nor compatible, and falls away like dead leaves.

ATAR_i said...

Faithful, thanks it makes sense. Do most men get at least one wife if they survive through adolescence in CC?

Faithful Woman said...

Pre warren or Post warren?

Faithful Woman said...

Yes, most men got at least one wife if they survived adolescence in the pre warren era. Of course, to survive you often had to have the right father or grandfather.
Of my grandfather's many boys, two of them were given wives by the "priesthood", and that was because the girls asked for them.
My own father was one of the two, but was given a fist to the face the night before his wedding by his future father-in-law.

Anonymous said...

God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth. For the Father seeketh such that worship Him.

God became man in the person of Jesus Christ. Man has never become God nor will he ever achieve that epitome of self worship. This practice represents Idol worship at it's lowest form.

Anti-Christ will proclaim himself to be god, but his final destination is in the lake of fire. I hope Warren likes a super-warm room, but don't really care, he's made his reservation without knowing anything about the resort he's bound for. No sunlight, no light of any kind, pain, gnashing of teeth, absence of the Presence of the Living God. Do I think Warren is THE Anti-Christ? No, he's not smart enough nor has he attracted a large enough following. He's just a little pretender, a pimple on a rat's posterior,

ATAR_i said...

So Faithful - is that has made you strong (and faithful) - you saw your parents?

I guess you know where you stand with the in-laws when that happens (pre wedding fist in the face).

Are your parents still alive?

Faithful Woman said...

My father was reconciled with his in-laws before I came along and I loved both sets of grandparents dearly. I heard the story later. It only helped me to look at my relatives in a more objective way. But I still love them.

Possibly I grew stronger than I might have otherwise because I was the eldest before a flock of 7 boys. They all say they liked me way better after I was married, then I didn't feel obligated to keep them in line as it were.

Many things conspire to create a personality.

onthestreet said...


Just thought I'd try to clean you out a little bit: How so, that man cannot become gods? Is not God the Father indeed, our very Father? Do not all children look up to their father, and try to become like him, if he is a true father (a god)? Of course! “Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect”. Is Jesus Christ a liar to you? Furthermore, the very Christian Bible speaks of the MANY GODS (yes, one God over them): I Cor. 8:

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as THERE BE GODS MANY, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Study of the Names of God(Exo 3:13 KJV) And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of ... He is not simply the greatest of many gods--He is the only true God.

God was . . . Justified in the Spirit - Forums at EliYah's Home pageYe shall be gods." Satan insinuated that It was due to God being egotistical ... It is also A classic example of why the KJV-only people ferociously censor forum=Forum10&number=10&thisthread

He also told Moses: “And ye shall be as God to Israel, in my stead”.


ATAR_i said...

I had no idea Faithful - the oldest of seven! I grew up in a house almost completely devoid of testosterone (only my father). I always wanted a brother.

That's a pretty funny story - I love those kinds of stories. My parents have a few good ones, that have been repeated through the years.

Faithful Woman said...

Actually, I was the first, then came the seven boys. When I was 15, I finally got a sister. Dad said that she didn't dare be a boy because I was there when she was born. Then another sister and two more boys.
I was married five days before the next to last boy was born so I didn't help raise them so much as I did the others.

ATAR_i said...

What an experience to help your mother give birth. I really cannot imagine that. A gal where I live has 19 children (no divorce, no multiple births) and I'm astounded.

When I moved here - I heard about her. No one was able to tell me her religion - only that it wasn't catholic, wasn't LDS, it was something different. I wonder what?

We are out of FLDS country, and she wears jeans - so I'm stymied.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps no religion and no knowledge of how to prevent becoming with child. How many were multiple births? Over what length of time did she bear these children? One of my great-grandmothers had fifteen, over a period of about twenty-five years.

Had a neighbor one time who had nine girls, no sons. She indicated that her husband wanted to keep trying until they had a son. She was PG all the time. She kinda reminded me of Ma Kettle who had so many children that she forgot their names. Wouldn't that be an experience, to grow up in a home where even your mother didn't know who you were?

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said... I had no idea Faithful - the oldest of seven! I grew up in a house almost completely devoid of testosterone (only my father). I always wanted a brother.


Anonymous said...

I sure glad you aren't mine. I'd have to disown you as damaged goods beyond redemption.