My Life in a Polygamist Compound

Slate ^ | 04/16/08 | Torie Bosch

[DFG]

When Texas authorities seized 416 children in a raid on a compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Americans quickly learned that the religious group encourages polygamy and the marriage of young girls to older men. Escape, a memoir published last fall, offers a more detailed portrait of life with the FLDS. In the book, Carolyn Jessop, a sixth-generation polygamist describes her life as the fourth wife of Merril Jessop, who ran the recently raided Texas compound. Carolyn left Merril in 2003, before he moved to Texas, but her memoir sheds light on the man and on the beliefs and practices common within the insular community. Below, Slate flags Carolyn's most intriguing, strange, and heartbreaking allegations.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Wow...silly, silly me! I guess I should only get my news from where...ElRusbo? How about I watch, listen, uses my senses and decide for myself...hmmmmmm.

[DoughtyOne]

Did I tell you to do otherwise? Hmmmmmmmmmm...

[GourmetDan]

"Think in terms of a farm that produces stock and maintains the herd that the bulls then assign to each other, just the number of wives (as young as 12) alone for a single bull can reach 50 and 60 and more, but as I said those wives can also be parceled out to other bulls at the whim of the cult."

As opposed to the great societal wilderness where any male can breed with any willing female (some as young as 12), spread STD's rampantly and take no responsibility for any offspring.

Oh yeah, we have a solution for that. Cut 'em up and extract 'em from the womb before they draw a breath.

Yeah, much better. I can see your point. /sarc

[Colofornian]

...but I remember a girl from my school who was a full-grown woman at age 12. Probably had D cups on that 'child' and she gave birth to her first baby when she was in the 6th grad.

If breast size alone = "womanhood" in your mind, I'd recommend you downsize your moniker from "Gourmet Dan" to "FastFoodFred"

[Revelation 911]

I don’t expect the cowards cheering the raid

if by that you mean the anti polygamy, anti pedophile, anti heretic crowd....then I personally fall into that crowd......and have come to the conclusion that reasoning with supporters of those pigs is a general waste of time

[DoughtyOne]

That’s an interesting response, but I think Ansel addresses what could be a real issue.

I don’t disagree with your abortion reference, in that it is also a very bad thing, something that our society has bought off on for way too long. I sure wish abortion clinics were allowed to get the full FLDS (public reaction) treatment.

[ansel12]

"Throwing out the age of 12 is useful for putting the picture you want in people's minds, but I remember a girl from my school who was a full-grown woman at age 12. Probably had D cups on that 'child' and she gave birth to her first baby when she was in the 6th grade. Somehow she figured out what that equipment was for all on her own."

Making up this, one is better than the other straw dog is childish.

When a 10,000 member group organizes itself around producing enough female children for the old men to add to their harems and in many cases for rape, then we need to break up that organization.

[Colofornian]

Trolling threads was intended to mean a group of folks who go from POLY thread to POLY thread accusing anyone who questions the government’s actions or the evil of Polygamy of all manner of sorts of ad hominum attacks. It’s the same bunch....here they are. [WD]

Hey, I've seen your posts on another PLIG thread. By your own standards, you now qualify as a PLIG troll. (So I guess it's OK for you to label others as "trolls," but if someone actually objects to your off-base comments, those are sorts of ad hominem attacks.")

If you want civil discourse on the subject then by all mean go ahread, you can start now.

You've already claimed, Wardaddy on another thread that the Bible "never condemns" slavery. I'd say that if you introduced that line of thought around enough Internet boards & chat rooms, at least nobody would ever "accuse" you of "civil discourse."

[ansel12]

I can’t say that I even understand that post, and I didn’t totally make sense of some of the others.

You seem to be angry at this bust, that is the only thing that comes through clearly.

[Colofornian]

Personally, I WONT call polygamy a sin because I can not find a single statement in the Bible that does so. [taxcontrol]

I can't either but that elicits howls. [wardaddy...someone who also says the Bible "never condemns slavery"]

He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. [Deuteronomy 17:17]

Do not take your wife's sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living. [Leviticus 18:18]

I can't either but that elicits howls. [wardaddy]

The Bible's not a wolf; in fact, the Bible makes it clear that the real howling wolves are those who won't "spare the flock" because they "distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." The apostle Paul was so concerned about that he spent 3 years night & day warning folks about it. (Nowadays, so-called civilized folks with church background yawn about these urgent warnings):

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears. (Acts 20:28-31)

[ansel12]

” I sure wish abortion clinics were allowed to get the full FLDS (public reaction) treatment.”

---

You have to change the laws for that to happen, but you can bet that some of the more aggressive Muslims that were anticipating when they could start pushing the envelope on arranged marriage and polygamy here in America, are watching this case in Texas very closely.

If Texas doesn’t prevail then Katy bar the door, polygamists, gays, Muslims, and everyone else will know that cultural America is officially dead and that everything goes now without any further resistance.

I may even form a group to “bleed the beast” and live in luxury.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, I want Texas to prevail. I too believe it is important. The only way it wouldn’t IMO, is if improper procedures allowed some peopel to get off who shouldn’t. If that were the case, the prescident wouldn’t be that polygamy was okay. It would be that proper procedure must be followed.

Let’s just hope justice is served, and the guilty get what is coming to them.

[Colofornian]

We have a lot of blowhards making a lot of charges. Strangely, the authorities haven’t followed through with charging anyone, or more than one or two people. Why is that?

OK, Doughty, you are confusing the process involved here. "The authorities" involved are (a) CPS; and (b) Law enforcement officials.

One of the roles of CPS is to intervene as a "prevent defense" of a minor when a credible report of past rape is pieced together with the potentiality of that reported trauma to repeat itself. In taking this act, CPS doesn't have to immediately "press charges" because it's not acting as a law enforcement agency, it's acting only as child protection agency.

The comments I see on a lot of these threads is that folks confuse the roles of these agencies. It's almost like we're sitting next to a group of fans during a televised football game, and one team is playing in a "prevent defense." Suddenly several viewers sitting on the couch next to you are loudly questioning why the "prevent defensive" squad isn't going on the offense and pressing for a touchdown.

Believe me, if that happened, you'd look @ the rest of the folks in the room wondering what "afootball" culture these folks are from.

[taxcontrol]

Lets put a little context to what you are referring. This passage of scripture refers to the qualifications for the King of Israel.

Deuteronomy 17:17 KJV
17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.

Read in context and translated directly from the Hebrew, this passage does NOT say, the king shall only have one wife. What it says is that the King shall not have a LOT of wives. No number of wives is given. We also know from the prophet Nathan, that the first six of King David's wives were given to him by God. The God I worship is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. If God calls multiple wives a blessing, I will not go against the word of God.

Leviticus 18:18 is in context included in the prohibitions with incest. Further, it does not state that a man can only have one wife.

[DoughtyOne]

To a certain extent I agree with you. On the other hand the authorities should bring charges if there are valid reasons to extricate the kids from the farm. If there are no valid charges to be brought, what’s going on here?

I realize some of this takes time, but it has been a while since this started and the bountiful charges that many think are justified, are just not coming yet.

Do you see any grounds to wonder why they haven’t?

[Politicalmom]

They are NOT “able to leave”. They are slaves. They know nothing about how to function outside the compound, their children are held hostages, they are denied even basic medical treatment.

[ansel12]

“I realize some of this takes time, but it has been a while since this started and the bountiful charges that many think are justified, are just not coming yet.”

---

When the state first went there they anticipated a total of 100 people to a possible 150 people TOTAL, of all ages, because of how the cult had been misleading the community.

Once the raid took place 15 days ago and the investigation for charges started, the authorities found out that many of these 600 people had no identities, they shared names, many of the children could not identify a parent, one reason for the delay in filing charges on individuals is unraveling who these people are, who is biologically “family”, which wives belong to which man, who are the biological parents of which child, and what state do those biological parents live in?

In cases lacking birth certificates the law has to determine the age of the pregnant girls, and existing young mothers and the age of their child through medical tests, and identify who is their “husband” and when the sex took place.

The cult had in recent times developed the strategy of not recording details or accepting birth certificates, because those had been used for convictions in the past.

This is a nest of vipers that they are trying to penetrate and while I don’t know how long the state has to start filing formal charges, I am in no rush, just complete the process in a reasonable time and be successful.

[Hacklehead]

We don’t have any of these problems in the Hacklehead cult. New recruits are always welcome.

[Colofornian]

The definition of 'cult' is similar to the definition of 'terrorist' vs 'freedom fighter'. It all depends on which side of the fence you are on. What you are learning is to call the gov't in on anyone who practices a lifestyle that isn't on your side of the fence. That and defining as a 'cult' those whose lifestyles are in the minority and not politically-correct...Someday your lifestyle will be the minority view and will not be politically-correct. Then you would be subject to being declared a 'cult' and your children hauled away to be properly indoctrinated.

This is precisely the sentiment by other posters I addressed on two threads yesterday. The context for the following comment is that when a minor is impregnated by someone else residing in the home, law enforcement officials usually only have a very limited window to save the girl from the horrors of a forced abortion. In light of that, I said:

I guess I thought a lot of FReepers were truly pro-life and pro-protection of young girls...instead what we see is constitution this and constitution that and Martin Niemoller comments (if I don't stand up for XYZ, I'm next). While many of the posters are truly concerned that if the state of Texas doesn't get this case right, it jeopardizes proper prosecution & states may get even more skittish about taking similar actions in the future...but I can't help but believe, from the tone of many comments I've seen over many threads, that for some folks, what they're really concerned about the "I'm next" part...they are more motivated about protecting themselves down the road than they are protecting their at-risk neighbors right now.]

These women are only being 'robbed' in your opinion. They seem to accept the lifestyle and don't act like they think they are being robbed. The ones who don't agree clearly were able to leave, so what's the big deal? [GD]

I tell you, I've a lot of comments on the threads posted by Metmom (thanks MetMom for those links). This comment of yours here pretty much takes the cake for "The Most Clueless Award." Listen, some of these girls "accept the lifestyle," as you say, the same way, Patty Hearst "accepted" the lifestyle of a kidnap victim by a radical organization and the next thing we saw, she was holding a gun in bank heists. (That's what being a traumatic victim does to you; that's what happens when survival mode kicks in; that's what happens when you are locked away with no escape possible in a propaganda environment)

If you are correct, then the gov't should protect homosexuals from themselves, teens from each other's STD's, fat people from McDonalds, etc, etc, etc. There is no logical end to that argument and the only acceptable opinion is that of the gov't. [Gourmet Dan’s response to MetMom saying So you’d rather sacrifice them to their cult than allow the government to do anything to protect its citizens from harm done to them by others? It’s OK for the cult to rob someone of their Constitutional rights but not OK for the government to stop them? ]

A non-sequitor argument. Re: Homosexuals & your McDonald’s analogy, we’re talking minors vs. adults. Your STD analogy also ignores the legal distinction in our culture…for example, a 17 yo boy who gets a 15 yo girl pregnant isn’t going to be brought up for “statutory rape” charges. But if you’re an adult in a position of authority over a minor girl, and if there is sex involved—even if it wasn’t forceable, that is statutory rape. Look it Dan…even if some of your questions are worthwhile considerations for concerns down the road, to downplay the immediacy of this urgency makes you look lopsided in how you approach this. Let me give you an example that I’m sure you can side with to some extent but which represents “both sides”: If a corporation severely pollutes its immediate environment, are you “surprised” if the government steps in and tries to remedy the situation? While you might be tempted, as you watch the beginnings of the clean-up to cry out, “Boy if the government cleans up this stuff (that we agree on is pollution), what will it do next? What ‘SuperSaver’ cape will it don next in its crusade against pollution?”

While you might have legitimate questions as to the degree of some pollutants’ effects in our environment, I don’t think the type of questions would be “legit” when most people agree that, “Yes, that appears to be a real environmental mess in a specific geographical location.”

And the “environment” that you are mixes apples & oranges in this Eldorado case is that we are, after all, talking about a minor’s “home.” When you claim there is “no logical end,” we’re not talking about an occasional fast-food restaurant; we’re not talking about a teen who is at risk from an STD from a threat outside the home. If a minor is sexually abused by an educator—and we’ve seen dozens & dozens of those FReeper threads over the past several years-- we don’t see advocates like yourself suddenly all concerned saying, “Boy, if they detain an educator on the specious claims of one student where will this stop? Are they going to keep all educators from developing any relationships with students?” To raise those kinds of questions borders on hysteria. Just as CPS would not remove a minor from a home if an educator reportedly abused her, you need to frame your arguments according to the boundaries already in place.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for the additional comments Ansel. While I generally agree with your comments, it is strange to me that intial charges couldn’t be brought now. Additional charges could be filed later.

We agree on justice, and that we want it realized here. You take care.