Sunday, May 04, 2008

No laws being broken?

This is an interesting document. It's in Adobe Reader form, so I apologize if it's not accessible to everyone. But, essentially, it's a list that was confiscated during the raid on the YFZ Ranch. The file contains the Bishop's List. The BL is a list of all the men and their wives and children. Doing the math makes it painfully obvious that they're in the habit of marrying off young girls and impregnating them as soon as they menstruate. What's a bit freaky, though, is that you can tell some people tried erasing the youngest girls' ages and hurriedly wrote in "18" or "21" as their ages. No joke.

Their "spiritual marriages" are looking more and more like child molestation every day. Also, note that some of the "wives" have more than two surnames. This reflects the FLDS tradition of the prophet giving a woman and her children to another man. A "more righteous" man (who hasn't run afoul of the current, sitting "prophet"). *rolls eyes*


Tara said...

Here's my observation:

So many kids, so few teenage girls listed as being with their parents. If they haven't been married off, WHERE are they?

I saw TWO girls of legal age (18 and 23) listed with their parents (and so presumably unmarried).

IF I count only the eldest girl in each family, there are 13 girls aged 11-16 (three age 16; two age 15; two age 14; one age 13; two age 12; three age 11) - these are the eldest girls in the families.

You're telling me that there are NO girls on that compound who are unmarried at 17 years old and only ONE unmarried 18 year old?

You're telling me that there are NO unmarried girls who are between 19 and 22 AT ALL.

Where are the rest of the teenage girls? Where are the ones who want to wait to get married?

There probably are none because they HAVE been married off already. I find it hard to believe that none wanted to wait (except maybe that stray 18 and 23 year old - or, maybe there is something about them that made them undesirable as wives).

I'd need more time to break down the rest of the numbers (like count up all the girls who are probably of menstruation age), but so far, something STINKS.

joie de vivre said...

Ewww. Just ewww. I have no other words to describe the situation. It is really heartbreaking, and creepy.

Anonymous said...

"Hiding" is an interesting place of residence...

Anonymous said...

Isn't it though, Ryner? The phrase "House of Hiding" creeps me out. And, Tara...I couldn't agree with you more. There's something totally hinky about the demographics as presented on those lists. You have three guys, maybe, who are on their first their early twenties. Where are all the other young men? Where are all the young ladies between fourteen and twenty-one? Like you said, the math doesn't work and given the history of the group, knowing how fast and furious babies come, it doesn't make sense that there are certain age groups that are practically non-existent. There were a few families, too, where even if you attributed a child to the oldest mother of the group, the fact was that that mother would've been a child herself during the pregnancy.

Also, remember unibrow? She was the one who hedged on telling the media how many wives her husband had? Her husband has something like sixteen wives and, by the age of her child, she married in at seventeen. Nice.

Sean the Blogonaut F.C.D. said...

This Mormon wacko crap would make me mad if I wasn't already pissed off with what is happening at Mercy Ministries in Australia.

It sounds like institutionalized rape and child molestation if you ask me. Protected by "religious rights".

Adria said...

Page 30 made me laugh.

'Thomas Cox self (no age given)'
'Eddylyn(?) Cox husband 19'
'Samual Cox father 5 months'

But yeah, sometimes I wish I had gone into psychology - I'll be interested to see the statistics.

Richard said...

Page 4, line 23 appears to be a 16-year old wife.

Page 5, line 7 is a 17-year old wife.

Page 5 also lists the two youngest as simply "Baby Boy Keate". Do they not give names until some time later? Nope, page 13 has two 1-month old sons with names. Page 33 has a 4-month "Baby Brother", so I guess it's a personal thing, but to not have a name after several months ?!?

On Page 10, Sons & wives have middle initials, but not the daughters.

Page 15 shows 3 women listed as "Guest".

Fascinating, but also disturbing...

Tara said...

In response to Richard's comment:

How much do we know about how they used medicine? What's the infant mortality rate?

If they do not subscribe to modern prenatal care and extensive medical intervention, perhaps some of them have adopted the archaic practice of not naming a child until at least its first birthday. This was once a fairly common practice in our culture when infant mortality was much higher.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that they also observe the practice of not publicly naming the infant until a baptism is performed. I've seen that happen in another FLDS clan. The other reason, which just pisses me off, is that some women will hold off on naming a child if her husband is not around to approve of the name.

Gramomster said...

One of my friends didn't name her baby for 7 weeks. Her partner kept suggesting things like Dudley and some other horrid thing that I can't remember...
She decided that when he agreed to Zac, she'd fill out the birth certificate, and make it official. Took him almost 2 months to concede.

Richard said...

I suspect that they also observe the practice of not publicly naming the infant until a baptism is performed.

I had thought of that possibility, too. But 5 months seemed like an awfully long time. (Although I admit that I have no idea what an average age is for infant baptism.)