Saturday, May 24, 2008

With Regard to the Warren Jeffs photo

Yes, I don't like it either.

For the purposes of the case, I don't see how it is relevant. Warren Jeffs is in jail. He is removed from the environment.

As to what it represents? I don't know but it would look to most of us like a wedding photograph. Keep in mind that Biblically, betrothal and marriage were the same. Joseph needed to get a Divorce from Mary, the mother of Jesus to end his relationship to her as shown in the Bible. They had not yet had relations. This suggests Mary was very young by our standards.

In our culture we refer to engagement in place of betrothal and believe engagements can be broken. That is not what we believe in my household. A betrothed couple would indeed be married but would not begin to have relations until after the wedding feast, all anecdotal evidence of scripture supports this.

This 13ish girl (I've seen stories saying she is 12) could be Warren Jeffs betrothed. That is one possible explanation. The explanation may even be more mundane than that. If they want the truth, I suggest they bring Warren to the courtroom and ask him. They certainly have the power to do that and I don't think Warren can evade his date with them.

Sphere: Related Content

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did you take a close look at the photos? They look photoshopped. The tie pin is wrong. The girl's hairstyle is slightly different,and
in one photo it even forms a perfectly even line against the background. There are some
really strange shadows too. The quality of the photos is curiously poor for such a formal pose. I'd like to see the originals.

Hugh McBryde said...

That would be hilarious if we had a case of "Fauxtography" on our hands.

Nevertheless with John Walsh's real testimony we know that there is no set age in the doctrine of the FLDS, it is more along the lines of physical maturity and varies from family to family, which as you know, is what I hold out for.

I didn't mention the possibility of Fauxtography but I thought of it. I'm glad to know that suspicion is out there, I hope someone can follow up on it. I still don't, however, think it makes any real difference. From the State's point of view Warren Jeffs, if he is a threat, is gone. Christians still uphold the murderer David as a man after Gods' own heart. All men have feet of clay.

TexasRN said...

Without context, the photos, even if real, are meaningless.

And since they involve different people than the couple in the hearing, I don't see how they apply. The hearing should focus only on the Jessop's behavior towards their children. How they view Jeffs should be immaterial since he is in prison and will have no opportunity to interact with their children.

After all, people still routinely re-elect Teddy Kennedy.

Anonymous said...

Look at the first photo, it has the names Warren and Loretta at the top. According to the article "Jessop identified the girl, who is listed in FLDS bishop's records as being born July 3, 1994, and is shown in pictures dated July 27, 2006, as his sister."

Rulon Daniel Jessop has an older sister Loretta who is 38 or 39 years old. She was married to Warren's father when she was about 20 years old. There is NO WAY she would have been 13 in 2005 she graduated from high school in 1989.

When I looked at the Bishop's records it didn't list Merril's or Warren's families. Does CPS have more that weren't posted online?

Those photos were posted by CPS for one reason "To Incite Public Furor" against the FLDS.

Hugh McBryde said...

LOL, as my kids say..."der.."

Anonymous said...

Bingo! Yesterday I googled images of Warren Jeffs. He's a good 15-20 years younger in the CPS photos. Where did you find the photos with names? There are no names and only a partial
date on the ones I have seen. I still think the images look badly photoshopped but maybe that's an effect of poor lighting and an older camera?

Hugh McBryde said...

I don't know how easy it will be to prove if it's "Fauxtography." What we have is a picture of a copy.

Pligchild said...

I tend to believe the pictures are not photo-shopped. I hope they are.

I am sure all of the FLDS people who saw the pictures did what I did:

"Jaw dropped to the floor, eyeballs rechecked over and over"

In the "Coming Crisis" are these words:
"And even God himself, the true God, will contribute to put means and instruments in [Satan's] way and at hand for his use, so that he can have a full trial of his strength and cunning, with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish."

Even though there is no sexual relationship required after an FLDS sealing at any time, and this girl would likely remain a virgin until after she is 18; the pictures could possibly drag many teenagers from their homes. If they are admissible in court.

They can handle it.

But the little ones who have suffered the very most should never have been tortured and scarred like they have. Being dragged away from their parents over and over again at each visit they longed for. How I pray for them!

Back when the Mormon people were driven away from their temple in Illinois there were many sealing’s of young girls, and some young boys. Mosiah Hancock and his bride were both 11. http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/MHancock.html

In the early part of this century a 12 year old girl who was orphaned was sealed to a Patriarch who was also her adopted father. They did not have any children until after she turned 17. I am a descendant from this family. That is the last time I ever even heard of a girl under 14 getting married. Even that is VERY rare. I did not realize how young Elissa Wall was until the court case, and she is by far the youngest. She looked older than my wife, who was 18.

"Still dragging jaw around many days later"

Pligchild said...

"Jessop identified the girl, who is listed in FLDS bishop's records as being born July 3, 1994, and is shown in pictures dated July 27, 2006, as his sister."

He was not identifying Loretta, he was identifying Marianne. The Loretta in the photo's is not Dan's sister.