Posted on 05/18/2008 10:05:55 PM PDT by UCANSEE2
"Three weeks into covering the polygamous ranch raid story, I keep hearing from colleagues throughout NBC News who want to know more about how members of the sect live."
--snip--
"Here are some of the things members of the sect told me about life on the YFZ Ranch – which stands for Yearn For Zion – in Eldorado, Texas:"
--snip--
"Much of the above sharply contrasts with the picture of alleged physical and sexual abuse painted by state investigators. The courts will ultimately decide which version of the truth is closer to reality. I can’t say whether what ranch residents tell me is true or not, but I thought you’d be interested in what they said." Source: http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/935617.aspx
(Excerpt) Read more at fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com ...
The hair is not in a pompadour or fancy teased style, it is variations of a pile or twist of hair on the head, to get it off the neck and out of the way. Some UPC'ers told me that only their husbands were allowed to see their hair 'down'. Single girls would have hair down to their behind. It was not so very long ago when a woman would 'let her hair down' was considered shocking.
Prairie dresses and similar modest dress is warn by very many very godly women who are not involved in cults. They appreciate the modesty and “safety” provided in them.
My wife and daughters are included in that number, along with many women (not all women) in our church. We are neither LDS, Mennonite, nor Amish, by the way.
My daughters will not wear dresses or skirts that are any shorter than 6 inches below the bottom of the knees when sitting. And usually they are much longer. They don’t show chest or a lot of arm either, and they are not tight fitting. They are colorful and varied in design, however, and are beautiful.
Our girls attract a lot of eyes, and usually I am approached by young men who have some charater about them. It is not prudish dress, and it is not evidence of a prudish attitude; it is “safe” dress. Young men with less character and mean bearing figure they won’t get their hands on these girls, and don’t come too near.
We married off our second daughter in Nov. ‘06 to a very fine prinicpled young man who was attacted to principle of modesty, rather than being attracted by seeing flesh. This young man didn’t approach my daughter first; he approached me.
I wouldn’t expect the residents of the FLDS to say anything different about how they live.
There’s a huge discrepancy between what they say goes on and what people like Carolyn and Flora Jessop say.
I don’t like evasive answers either.
The results of the DNA testing and medical exams for child abuse should be very telling.
A prime example of why I should avoid threads about FLDS. We cannot even agree on the correct term for a hairstyle.
I'm going to believe my eyes, and I see pompadours! :)
What jail were they in and on what charges?
And why should we consider you a reliable source? What gives you more credibility than her? Do you know things about this cult that we don't and how would you corroborate it?
It occurs to me that the residents of flds are not reliable sources.
They know that what they are doing is illegal and wrong and I expect them to deny practicing it. They would never be able to admit that polygamy and statutory rape is going on because that would be an admission of guilt of breaking the laws of the state of Texas and then they'd be screwed.
I have lots more reason to believe that they are not reliable sources, ie, that they're lying, than I do from Carolyn Jessop and other people like her who have left.
And on what legal basis that would be acceptable to the anti-government folks could that have been done?
Texas has legal provision to remove children from a residence that they have reason to believe is abusive. What provision would the state have to kick the men out of their own homes?
That's also presuming that only the men are abusers in this situation and that the women are innocent in this regard and that has not yet been established. If the women were participants in the abuse, then removing the men would not have protected the children from much except the rape part.
Elissa Wall will be on Larry King tonight.
CPS is not authorized to remove anyone but the children.
No just synopsis of your implications.
You got pwnz, in the vernacular of the day.
It’s about control.
Okay, wasn’t sure. I had heard it bantered a bit and thought that during the investigation process it would have been a lot less intrusive. Especially if the majority end up back at home anyway.
My grandmother, who has been gone a little over 20 years now, had hair to her waist and she never left the house without it up in a bun. I think I was a teenager before I ever knew she actually had long hair. Typically long sleeve, long dresses although she occasionally wore short sleeves.
If you look at the old timers, they all wear long sleeves, long pants, long dresses, and usually hats. They're the old prudes that DON'T get skin cancer.
All I did was ask if it had been considered that the source might be unreliable. I ALWAYS consider the reliability of my sources before relying on them. Thus far, the proven lies have been committed by the anti-FLDS crowd, mostly law enforcement.
FIP ping
Yep,
Exactly——
Bondage and discipline Little House on the Prairie Style.
And there it is.....persons who have left and told their story may not be reliable. Dare I say defender?
And they are?
What are your reliable sources that corroborate your statement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.