Saturday, June 30, 2007

Multimedia day with a polygamous Family

http://166.70.44.68/multimedia/pluralfamily/

Brooke Adams has a multimedia presentation, here is a snipped - An article comes out Sunday - this is a teaser. It was very tastefully done - I'd love to here feedback on what people think

41 comments:

bbgae said...

Wow, Atar. It kinda reminded me of an episode of Big Love.

Brooke did a good job on this report. Thanks for bringing it here.

It looked like the family was somewhere in the Salt Lake valley, from the looks of the mountains when the girls were out on the trampoline.

I know exactly what it is like to make those kinds of breakfasts for that many people on a daily basis.

I'm pleased this family was open to the media. IMHO- Plural marriage is not a sin and those who participate in healthy plural relationships and families should not have to hide.

Anonymous said...

Thats very interesting, but quit unlike the FLDS.

fttc said...

"What's to show, we're just a family?"

I think that quote from the interview is typical of all plural mariage families that have not succumbed to the paranoia present with some. I know it was that way with our family growing up. Of course we were different, but who isn't?

I feel like Brooke has been very fair with the reporting she has done. This just fits in with the rest of her work. While I would not choose to have my family life made public as this family has done (we've actually turned it down several times), I think this presentation will go a long way to showing that plural families are different in the dynamics of dealing with numbers but not so different raising healthy, happy children. It really is all about the children when done right.

fttc said...

Anon 10:00

What did you find so different other than the obvious dress style? Other than that I thought it matched closely with families I have known.

Anonymous said...

Just keep telling yourself the lie about plural marriage.


I am curious is Brooke Adam married or single?

fttc said...

Typical question for someone who cannot debate on fact. Attack the messenger instead of the message. It seems I heard this same complaint from the Flora crowd not long ago, which I presume you support.

DreamGyrl360 said...

Altho I expected the wives to be dressed modestly, I thought it was great.

I am not a polygynist but I do believe that it is within God's Law for that type of relationship. I don't think it's a sin, which is why I'm following Warren's case; he gives polgyny a bad face.

Anonymous said...

I can debate on fact. But those of you who have grown up or are practicing plural marriage will not accept "biblical facts."


No I am not a supporter of Ms. Jessop. I don't even know her.

Fttc if you legalize or decriminalize plural marriage how many wives are enough?

How would you write this law? Please write in plenty of legal protection for the wive's and children. Please include whether a man can marry sisters and stepchildren.

I would love to see what kind of law you would write.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous of 12:22pm,Why the "H" do you care how we live?Why don't you go "SAVE" someone else?BBGAE is a plural child,why don't you go help her?

ATAR_i said...

Firstly, a couple observations. The guy didn't show his face - probably because he's not 'out' and bbgae stated it did look like SLC - which would make sense.

Secondly - that guy is one lucky dude - did you see his wives - they were nice looking, and in shape, and they each must have an average of 7 children.

Thirdly, the cost of living must be really high. But, I imagine with a lot of home cooking and buying in bulk you could really save money.

I thought it was well done. Now, I'm no polygamist, and personally think it shouldn't be practiced as it's not legal. However, I don't find it 'sinful'.

If you are a Bible believer, the Bible states the marital status which God thinks we should aspire to is being SINGLE, multiple spouses, or a single spouse for that matter, makes it easier to be distracted from devotion to God. Marriage between one man and multiple women is in and of itself sinful Biblically - that I can see.

I've no doubt people with multiple spouses can be as devoted to family and marriage as anyone, or they can muck it up just like anyone.

fttc said...

Anon 12:22

I didn't think you needed to know Flora to support her. Your stance on plural marriage DOES support her cause. Please accept my apologies for aligning you with her cause.

I would not write any new laws. There are laws on the books now that will protect the women and children and every other citizen of the US. You want a law that will force me to comply with your ideas of 'purity'? No thank you! If the constitutional law was enforced there would not have been the problems with plural marriage any more than those with monogamy. The true abuses in the FLDS did not need any new laws to prosecute for them, just as abuses within monogamous relatianships can be. The same law applies for both as far as abuse goes. If you are talking about common property laws there may need to be some work done. However, I don't believe writing law will solve any of societies problems. Rather it would be a process of determining how the existing law applies to a different situation.

My response for 'how many wives are enough?": I would ask in return, how many divorces and broken homes are enough under the current marriage laws? It comes down to personal responsibility. A man and wife(or wives)should only take on as much as they can handle. If they are not taking care of the family they produced they should be penalized severely. I think we should strive to place the burden of responsibility on people instead of government. Perhaps you will reply that the social services that monitor complaints is not set up to handle plural families (So we need new laws). I know of plural families that have been complained on and the social services worked very well with them to iron out the difficulty. Some children had to be placed elswhere, some complaints were not substantiated on investigation. So again, the laws we have are sufficient.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Hey Anonymous of 12:22pm,Why the "H" do you care how we live?Why don't you go "SAVE" someone else?BBGAE is a plural child,why don't you go help her?

6/30/2007 1:06 PM


I am not try to save anyone. Why are you so "touchy" 1:06.

I am a law abiding tax payer and live in the good old USA, last I looked it is a free country and I can express my opinions.


Why don't you write a law for plural marriage. I dare ya!

Anonymous said...

We need something legal on the books (for legalizing or decriminalizing polygamy) so that if a woman wants to leave she can sue the "family" (husband and other wives) for alimony, child support, property, etc.

Otherwise, she "pays" in time, money, goods or services, but has no legal claim for anything in the household if she leaves and is not the 1st legal wife.

That is just not fair.

rumor-has-it said...

That was a pretty cool video. I liked it alot. That's what my family would look like if I had a few more wives and kids.

Anonymous said...

2 of the wives in this family are Vicki and Valerie who are sisters.

Yes, the two women are absolutely gorgeous. Anne Wilde with Principle Voices of Polygamy have made Vicki and Valerie her "poster polygs".

I mean that literally - they graced the cover of her magazine.

That certainly is not a typical polygamous family. This is how the pro-polygamists want you to see them - beautiful, happy, living in a posh home with granite countertops, etc.

While many other women and children living in polygamy are doing without, wearing hand-me-down clothes and living below the poverty level or are on welfare.

Anonymous said...

Very darn few of the Cenntenial people are on welfare.The Crick is a
differant story.

Anonymous said...

That's good news that the taxpayers aren't paying for the people in Centennial Park too. So are they just living at or below the poverty level then? Or are they rich and affluent like the family in this video?

fttc said...

Anon 9:50

On what authority do you say that others are living below the poverty level? Do you have hard facts or is it hearsay? And how many is others? Please give us some numbers. You seem to want to throw this all on plural marriage. Is the percentage of poverty families above that of the average community not living plural? I truly don't think it is.

Anonymous said...

I say it on the authority of the US Census published data.

Information published in March 2004 taken from the US Census

Families below poverty level

Colorado City, Arizona - 29%
Hildale, Utah - 37%
State of Utah - 6.5%
State of Arizona - 9.9%

I would say those numbers are statistically significant and that more families living "plural" are below the poverty level than those who aren't living "plural".

fttc said...

OK. Thank you for the numbers. I for one know that the numbers are tweaked. Not by the Census Bureau, but by the nature of the definition of poverty according to the Census.

Have you ever been to Colorado City or Hildale? If not take a trip, look around and see if you can find all these poverty stricken folk. You will find that most of the homes are very beautiful homes, most of the children are very well dressed and a new vehicle in nearly every driveway. You won't find the skinny, emaciated children that the idea of poverty brings to mind. The percentage of those you will find not in this condition will be far less than the numbers you quote. If your gripe is the fact that you as as taxpayer are footing the bill for these families I second the motion. They should not be getting the government support. The way the welfare system is set up it is easy to claim poverty because of the number of family members for the income of the father. This is not right and should be stopped. This is what I was talking about with the personal responsibility statement above. As Anon pointed out, legalizing plural marriage has its benefits and will help to end this welfare abuse.

Anonymous said...

No, you won't find the emaciated children because the majority of the people are receiveing welfare (food stamps and cash assistance).

And, before you bite my head off to provide numbers let me provide them to you.

According to the Arizona Attorney Generals office 80% of the people in Colorado City received food stamps. No wonder they aren't starving!

And no wonder they can afford to have "a new vehicle in nearly every driveway." It's because the taxpayers are paying to feed the people in Hildale and Colorado City who have plural wives and loads of children.

If I didn't have to pay to feed my children, I could afford to drive a new vehicle too.

I go to the stores in Washington/St. George and I bargain shop and pinch pennies to buy chicken to feed my family while I watch the polygamists in line in front of me buying steaks with foodstamps. I have an issue with that!

It sounds like you are in agreement that the taxpayers should not be footing the bill to pay for these huge families.

What is the solution to stop this? And, why would the polygamists want it to stop? What is going to make them all of a sudden wake up with a social conscience of "personal responsibility" and stop robbing us blind? They have a free meal ticket on you and me. It's just not going to stop. And I resent that!

Anonymous said...

I question how the father can possibly give enough attention to 21 children. Can someone tell me how that would be possible?

fttc said...

The solution is reform within the social services program. It is not only among plural families that welfare abuse happens. I have been in line at the grocery store and had the same experience with monogamist families. ( I do not live in a polygamist community). They are dressed much better than I and driving the new vehicle, all of the markings of abuse on the system, yet they pull out the food card and I pay my bill and theirs. The families in CC/Hildale can provide without the gov. aid. The secret is many of them will only deal in cash so there is not a paper trail to their income. A little investigation will show the social workers that they are not in the poverty bracket.

I don't know what the answer is as far as the regulations. I am willing to bet their are regulations existing that only need enforcing. It will take many more of you and me kicking and screaming at our representatives to get something done about it.

America is still the land of opportunity and we have far too many living in 'poverty' than we have the excuse for. It is not that we need to give the 'poor' more money. We really need to give them more incentive to work. But I digress. This is not the problem in CC/Hildale. They have the work available, they have the incentive and the ability. They have just found a loophole in the application for free handouts. It was an embarrassment to me when I was still in and it is now. They do not need this money to support their families. They would have to be more frugal. They might have to live in a house where every bedroom did not have its own bathroom. They would have to drive a car that was not the current edition. They may even have to forego sending most of their income to the prophet every month. But they certainly wouldn't starve to death and they wouldn't sink into the condition of the slums in our larger cities. In fact they would be forced to become more self-reliant and responsible.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:36
Shut up! I dont know why you're b*****ing, if it wasnt them using it would be illegals or the other mexicans. What does it matter what they buy with it??? Sounds like you're mad because you wish you could use food stamps too and buy steaks or whatever, you dont know everything.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:11,
not all of the kids are little at the same time, and they have family nights and things like that. So its not impossible. The parents love their kids so much.

bbgae said...

I know for a fact there ARE families living in Colorado City right now WHO DO NOT use welfare and still provide for themselves and their families. They are honest, proud people who will not ask for help when they can help themselves, even if they have to budget to accomplish this. I know them personally.

I also know people in Colorado City who are on welfare and NEED it. They do not abuse the system. What does it matter Who recieves government help (IMHO every race, creed, religious, and non- religious person should qualify if they truly need it.) Would you rather do away with the welfare system entirely? Then, when you stand in line at the grocery store and see ahead of you in line a poor polygamous family wearing rags with only a fifty pound bag of rice and a fifty pound bag of beans in their cart you can say to yourself, "That's fair, that's what they earned and that's what they can afford to buy." Will that make you feel better, Anon? To KNOW they are not cheating the system?

I also know personally a few people who DO cheat the system, and they are very clever about it. They are the ones who gripe everybody, I think. I agree with you 100% that THIS IS WRONG!

But let me tell you a little secret......Legalizing polygamy would make it easier to prosecute them.

You are so worried about numbers. You say, When are there enough wives? Do you honestly think the second the law (if it were to really pass) was signed there would be a rash of marriages with no rationallity or common sense to govern the onslaught? Is that the picture you get in your head whenever you think about legalizing polygamy? Because I can tell you right now it won't happen.

Anon said "Go save BBGAE, she's a plural child." Why, thank you! Do you really think I need saved, or did you know I would give the other Anon a piece of my mind....:D LOL!

fttc said...

Thanks bbgae

I hope Anon sees your comments as a qualifier for my own. I agree with you on the welfare issue. Inside plural marriage and out, if someone is truly in need I hope they can find help. The welfare system was established with this in mind.

IMHO the various religious groups would do a far better job of administration than Big Bro. Americans are generally very liberal in helping others in need. If the program was administered more responsibly I would feel much more like contributing.

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that the push is to get polyamy decriminalized instead of legalized. There is a big difference between the two in the eyes of those who practice plural marriage.

Making it legal sets legal guidelines and laws. If those guidelines and laws aren't followed, then a crime is committed. There would be consequences if you did not follow the letter of the law.

Making it decriminalized just makes it where you don't have to worry about going to jail if you're caught. There really aren't any serious consequences.

At least that is how it was explained to me.

bbgae said...

Where would there be the need to police the matter? Just let it be legal and legitimate. End of story.

Have we lived under the radar for so long that we have such a fear of the government? Is it REALLY that hard to be a law abiding citizen?

Most of us allready are and have no problem with it.

Actions have consequenses. They always have and they always will. It is our choice which consequences we recieve by the actions we take.

Legallizing polygamy is what we need, not just decriminalizing it.

What are you really afraid of?

Anonymous said...

Amen BBGAE!!!! Why oh WHY be afraid of it??? Legalizing polygamy is the only sensible way to approach any problems that exist within it. And I am BTW, polygamous. And yes, there ARE problems within it just like there are problems within monogamy. But monogamists don't have to hide.

Anonymous said...

Think about this wrinkle:

Welfare for the most part is created by the slave-engendering Federal Reserve privately owned banking system. The true stifling power that deprives us all of the prosperity we should be enjoying universally; globally by now.

FoodStamps are money created the by the legal method. A currency created and administered by the Government as the constitution specifies. The only problem with foodstamps is that they are not an unrestricted transferable currency, so it can be used by any holder as as legal tender.

Instead of seeing this as "your tax dollars" being mis appropriated, you should view these users as the last standing patriots, and go get on the "dole" if you can qualify honestly.

ALL of this shroud of secrecy that the pligs get accused of is created by the threat of legal pressure from the ignorant media hyped masses and politicians with hidden agendas of vote garnering.

Law enforcement gets the impossible task of finding victims that don't exist, and generating witnesses that can't be found, to enforce quaint or unconstitutional laws that are not specific or can be equally applied.

Amen... please pass the pickles.

Anonymous said...

bbgae said...
Where would there be the need to police the matter? Just let it be legal and legitimate. End of story.


OK bbage let it be legal and legitimate as long as it is not connected to "any religious doctrine."

Anonymous said...

Indeed. Nobody cares if you keep your ridiculous traditions just as long as you don't have any real faith in God. That is what offends them at the core. Bring on the Big Love, just as long as you remove the real reason for it.

Anonymous said...

What offends to the core is using the name of God in vain to justify ridiculous things.

Anonymous said...

Like getting food-stamps and teen-aged wives.fraud.

ATAR_i said...

I think we can all agree that if you correctly reflect the nature of your financial status, and you qualify for food stamps - it is perfectly acceptable to obtain such help.

FTTC - you stated that the poverty statistics were 'tweaked' - and I gather that is for a couple reasons.

1. people get paid in cash, no paper trail, thus it appears they are poor, when they truly are not.

2. people do not have legal marriages, therefore you have women with 'no income' on paper (when in actuality, they are supported by a 'husband') and thus, they look impoverished on paper - yet in reality, are no such thing.

I've no doubt the abuse of the 'poverty status' exists outside of CC and Hildale - it just looks slightly different.

Perhaps something like this

Chicago - a drug dealer or prostitute makes an income - a very nice income (if they don't actually do drugs or have vices), and it is unreported. They drive a fancy pimped out SUV, have nice grills, and 200 dollar sneakers - yet they qualify for food stamps.

Perhaps they actually 'can work' but collect disability, and work 'all cash' jobs on the side doing plumbing, gardening, construction, day care etc. If they reported this money, paid taxes on this money, they would not qualify. But since they don't...they qualify for reduced lunches for their children, scholarships, clothing programs, reduced prices at any number of recreational facilities, reduced daycare, food stamps, and inexpensive housing.

YES abuses are everywhere - they look different based on the geographical area - but it's the same thing, and the whore and drug dealer commit the same sneaky abuse as the FLDS woman or man - kinda hard to swallow - but in all truth - no differnt.

bbgae said...

Ok, Bbgae, let it be leagl and legitimate as long as it is not connected to "any religious doctrine."

Exactly.

Then any religion can have the legal rights to live the way they believe and they can fill in their own 'doctrine' between the spaces.

Every polygamous sect is different. Who are we to say ours is the only one that deserves legality? The only way it can work is if it is without "doctrine." That is the only true way (I'm talking about a legal bill on polygamy here).

There has to be a fine line between church and state. Just like there has to be a line between buisness and personal dealings.

There is a reason for it.

fttc said...

Thanks Atar-

You guys, oops gals can say what I am saying much better than I. I do share the feelings of disgust with Anon about the welfare some are recieving in the FLDS. It is an old discussion here, I think over a year ago, it is too late to look it up, but in a sense the welfare some are receiving is actually being passed on to operate the FLDS projects. Remember the school district? It seems they were able to make it look legal on the surface as there were no prosecutions, yet the dismissals, numbers, and circumstances all point to fraudulent activity. Not to mention the money trail. Just because you can get away with it doesn't make it right. Our people used to understand this. It has been lost in the shuffle somehow.

Anonymous said...

No Fttc, they haven't gotten way with it. God knows.

Eternity clock ticks and you just think all is lost in the shuffle.

Jeffs has them thinking they are striving for perfection, when in truth they are striving in deception, the devil's perfect tool.

fttc said...

I appreciate your comments but I didn't exactly say ALL was lost in the shuffle. I specifically meant that their conscience has been seared.

Yes, they will answer to the Father as we all will. And your comment on the deception is dead on.

onthestreet said...

The operative word being "dead".