Friday, May 02, 2008

More Intrigue

Another interesting post from a former FLDS member. This one by his cousin (also former member, apparently). I am amazed and somewhat bewildered. IF their writings are true... to think that everything we "know" about this cult could be wrong in this age of instant information is astonishing.

Here's a pdf of a Bishop's Record taken about a year ago. Apparently a census-type record, showing heads of household, wives, children, ages and locations. Some things I found interesting:

  • Several monogamous (so far, anyway) households - about one third of the families listed - one man, one wife, some or no children. At least one is a middle aged couple (late 30s) with several children.
  • Several infants (7 months or younger) have yet to be named. Listed as "Baby Boy" or the like. Do they wait for a "personality" to be expressed before settling on a name?
  • A couple wives and children from the lists have their location listed as "Hiding" or "House of Hiding."
  • Some heads of household have someor all of their wives/children in other locations. While I take issue with this under the realm of 'fatherhood' (or lack thereof), it's hardly illegal.
  • The youngest wives appear to be no younger than 16. There were no obvious 'absurdly young' mothers. Some families didn't list which children belonged to which wife, so it's possible they're there, but none were apparent. I would however, love to talk to the 19-year-old married to the 56-year-old. Yikes.
  • One old guy, 67, has himself a pile of wives, several of which have long names. Eva Heaton Johnson Jessop Nielson, for example. She is 79 (12 years older than her husband) and I find myself wondering if she was perhaps widowed (once or more) and 'reassigned' as we hear of so often. Which brings up an interesting question; whose wife will she be in the Celestial Heaven? His youngest wife (24) also has an extra surname or two, so...
  • Lots of Johnsons, no Smiths. :)


Headmistress, zookeeper said...

I pretty much concur with what you've said here- same questions, same observations.
One *possible* story on the wives and children in other places- one of them is the Richard Barlow the SLTrib interviewed today who has eight children in custody. On the form a year ago they were all listed as being at Short Creek. Towards teh end of the form where there's a listing of dwellings, a couple of them say something like 'needs help.' I *wonder* if *some* of the men came ahead to YfZ to build the houses and get things ready, and that's why their families weren't with them.

Others, of course, maybe women who chose not to live in the community anymore and left with their children, as the FLDS have said sometimes happens. But we really don't know.

I do not approve or even sympathize with many FLDS doctrines and practices- but that doesn't mean they deserve to lose their children. I know you agree, I just get so aggravated with this case.

EllaJac said...

That is true, that many likely 'came ahead' to prepare a home for their families.

It also seems like, at least in some ways, they worked to carefully stay within the requirements of the law (submitting more material than required for their on-site education). I'm sure they didn't imagine this could happen.

There are days I myself wouldn't mind building a big white wall and living out my happy life with my organic garden and dairy, working together with other likeminded folks!