Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
I saw it in Google News too. What a great summary of the Sister Wives series...and insight about TLC's past polygamy shows!
Date: Dec 02, 2010
Word Count: 2200 words
Cross-Reference: Sister Wives, TLC, Brown family
In the Fall of 2010, the television network, TLC, had suddenly changed course from its past programming, going from negative to positive "about polygamy." For a channel whose initials assert to be "The Learning Channel," its previous shows "about polygamy" never provided a genuinely honest "learning" experience for its audiences on the topic. Based on such past shows, the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults viewed TLC as an intentional source for inciting anti-polygamy bigotry. But beginning on September 26, 2010, "The Learning Channel" made it possible for all that to change: TLC began broadcasting a new reality show, called, "Sister Wives."
TLC'S PAST ANTI-POLYGAMY "REALITY" SHOWS
But prior to that new reality TV show in 2010, TLC's programming in previous years had been bigotedly harmful against normal consenting adult polygamists.
On September 24, 2006, TLC aired a would-be "documentary" called, "My Husband's 3 Wives." While claiming to be "about polygamy," the show centered on an egomaniacal man's "polygamy by affair." The national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults took note of TLC airing such a horrendously false "re-definition" of polygamy about which the movement so adamantly opposed. The married man in the show had discovered that he had fathered a child from an affair he had had years previously. So, he forced the woman upon his existing family and called himself a "polygamist." The show focused on his attempt to later force a third woman on the family, while the first two women were not in favor of the idea. When the show was re-broadcast years later, the update at the show's conclusion stated that two of the women had left that same year in 2006, and that the first "legal wife" divorced him in 2008. Clearly, this 2006 show was never a legitimate example for learning "about polygamy."
Two years later, on November 16, 2008, TLC aired another show, "Forbidden Love: Polygamy." While claiming to be "about polygamy," this would-be "documentary" was simply one attractive, young British lady's anti-polygamous viewpoints about Mormon polygamists. The national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults again took note of TLC airing such a twisted anti-polygamy show. The would-be "reporter," Dawn Porter, manipulated two different Mormon polygamous families - after her producers had been rejected by the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults. She exploited the feelings of one Mormon polygamous family's "first wife's" feelings to make polygamy look as being hurtful to women. With a different family, Porter also cleverly manipulated the media-inexperienced naiveté of an obviously-unwealthy Mormon polygamous man, housing his family in a remote trailer in the desert which she presented as apparent-squalor. With leading questions, she verbally positioned the scruffy, pot-bellied gentleman to actually say that he would be unfaithful if he was not a polygamist. As he unwittingly fell right into her ploy, Porter subsequently exploited his asserted "selfishness" as her supposedly "confirmed" definition of "man's view of polygamy." And when she left the family's trailer in the end, she over-dramatically "caught her breath" to proclaim her insult, "That was nuts! That was properly nuts!" Clearly, this 2008 show was never a legitimate example for learning "about polygamy," either.
With that track record of broadcasting such offensively misrepresented shows "about polygamy," TLC was definitely not trusted by most normal consenting adult polygamists by 2008. Hence, when producers pitching a show they intended to sell to TLC came seeking for a willing family to do a reality series from the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults, it was no wonder that few families felt safe enough to work with them.
"SISTER WIVES" – THE BROWN FAMILY TAKES CHANCE TRUSTING TLC
Even so, one family did accept the dangerously risky chance with the producers of the show for TLC; and, the result was a new series titled, "Sister Wives." The one-hour premiere aired on September 26, 2010, followed by two one-half-hour episodes on each of the next three Sunday evenings. A one-hour "Interview Special" later aired on November 1, followed by a pre-taped "Honeymoon Special" episode on November 21, 2010.
Consequently, the renowned Oprah Winfrey show on CBS even broadcast her own interview with the Brown family on October 14, which was re-aired again on November 30, 2010. Therewith, Oprah Winfrey - for her very first time - actually presented a positive show "about polygamy," undistorted with the false stereotypes pre-supposed by her uninformed bigotries evident in her previous shows throughout the years on the topic. Hence, Oprah Winfrey apparently may have had an "aha moment" herself "about polygamy" – similarly as those of many of the show's viewers.
As "Sister Wives" revealed, Kody Brown (aged 42) legally married his first wife, Meri (aged 39), as young adults 20 years ago – she had one child. Janelle (aged 40) was friends with Meri and Kody before she had an unlicensed marriage with Kody 17 years ago - she had 6 children. Christine (aged 37) had an unlicensed marriage with Kody 16 years ago – she had 5 children and the sixth was born during taping of the show. This first season of "Sister Wives" focused on currently welcoming a fourth wife, Robyn (aged 31), in to the family with an unlicensed marriage too - she was a divorced single mom bringing three young children from that previous marriage. By the end of the show's Season One, the family consisted of one husband, four wives (although only one was "legally married"), and 16 children - a total of 21 individuals.
While the Brown family is definitely a Mormon polygamous family, the show rarely displayed that fact. Indeed, the family presented itself as very obviously modern, wearing clearly-modern clothes and hairstyles. The family is apparently so "secularized" that second wife, Janelle, even mentioned the need to have caffeine at one point in the very last "special" episode - something which even many "mainstream Mormons" still refuse to consume.
Undoubtedly, however, the Browns' reason for so many children is completely premised in specifically Mormon religious doctrine, a particular paradigm which separates Mormon polygamy from other forms of consenting adult polygamy around the country. Moreover, while three of the Brown family's wives had grown up in Mormon polygamous communities, most consenting adult polygamists around the country have no connections to anything Mormon-based and do not live in polygamous communities. Yet, the Brown family mostly kept their religious beliefs out of the show, simply presenting themselves as a modern – even somewhat secularized – family of four adult women and one adult husband who intentionally chose to live polygamously.
THE FOUR WIVES ON "SISTER WIVES"
Aptly titled, "Sister Wives," emphasis on the show was primarily directed toward the wives, their interactions, and their views of life as they live it. Each of the wives clearly presented different feelings, opinions, goals, and what they get out of their polygamous family. Without question, husband Kody Brown made it known that he is well aware that they are four strong women who absolutely speak their minds!
First wife, Meri, grew up in a Mormon polygamous family. When Kody's father converted to the particular community involving Mormon polygamy, Kody was introduced to polygamy at that time. Because of Meri's growing up in a polygamous family and the Mormon polygamous religious doctrine of having many children, she always expected to be married that way too. As they indicated, she was presented as having been the subtle "push" behind Kody actually marrying all three of the other wives. During the show, Meri was working at a part-time job - which she later lost after the publicity of the show aired. She also expressed that she wanted to go back to school for more education. Due to infertility issues, Meri tearfully explained that she was blessed with only one daughter and that she had experienced a miscarriage with the one other time she was pregnant. She stated that she had always wanted lots of children, and, if it was not for polygamy, a "monogamous version" of her family would have then only consisted of three people – something she would not ever want.
Second wife, Janelle, joined the family of Kody and Meri after they had been married for three years already. Unlike Meri, though, Janelle had grown up in non-polygamous "mainstream Mormonism." She was friends with Meri and Kody for some time - even thinking of them as the only "Mormon polygamous friends" she knew. She later described her relationship with Kody as always very much on a deep friendship basis - as well as her closeness with Meri - from the beginning. For Janelle, polygamy allowed her to be able to focus on work. Indeed, Janelle presented herself as very much the working mother, and she made it clear how much she appreciated the freedom to be able to do so while equally knowing that her six children were also well-cared-for at home.
Third wife, Christine, joined Kody, Meri, and Janelle one year after Janelle's marriage. Like Meri, she, too, had grown up in the Mormon polygamous paradigm. She stated that she had always wanted to be the third wife, explaining that she had always wanted the family with the women. Hence, entering the Brown polygamous family was ideal for her. In the same way that Janelle thoroughly enjoyed the freedom to work that her polygamous family situation made possible, Christine explained that she equally enjoyed the freedom to be the stay-at-home mom who cares for the children throughout the day.
Fourth wife, Robyn, was in the process of courting Kody as the first season of "Sister Wives" began. She originally came from another Mormon polygamous community that was a five-hour-drive away. Robyn was divorced from her three children's father who was not a polygamist himself. Not only was she quite comfortable with polygamy, but she very much wanted to be part of the Brown family. Before they all met, Meri had first noticed Robyn at a gathering and had mentioned to Kody to consider Robyn – again, Meri being the subtle "push" that led to Kody marrying another woman. Eventually, the Brown family helped Robyn and her three children move to a home nearby, located only one mile away from the huge Brown house instead of being the distance of the five-hour-drive. The last episode culminated in Robyn's wedding with Kody; and, the subsequent "Honeymoon Special" focused on both her honeymoon with Kody as well as on revealing the expressed feelings of the other three wives during that 11-day getaway. For Robyn, she shared that marrying Kody meant receiving the joy of the larger family for both herself and her three children.
WILL MORE LEARNING "ABOUT POLYGAMY" CONTINUE ON TLC?
Within the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults, most families and supporters are very happy to see that TLC positively presented a modern, consenting adult polygamous family (notwithstanding that many polygamous families around the country are not from the Mormon polygamous paradigms, of course). Even so, though, as bigamy laws still remain on the books in all states, most polygamous families still do not feel safe enough to take the same public risks that the Brown family took.
Indeed, soon after the show first aired, media-hyped news broke that the Lehi, Utah, police were considering filing charges against the Brown family - for breaking Utah's bigamy laws. Renowned Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, joined the public fray as their attorney in the event that such charges might be actually filed. (Over the last few years, Professor Turley had been publicly repeating the arguments already made by the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults – thereby, embracing and validating those arguments.) Although Kody had only "legally married" Meri, some state laws - as in Utah - actually criminalize the free speech of a married man even calling an unlicensed woman as a "wife." Even unlicensed cohabitation that has simply the "appearance" of being polygamous can be a crime. Although no charges were filed by the time that Season One of "Sister Wives" ended, the possibility of such charges being filed still remained possible. As TLC announced that it would indeed begin airing Season Two in the coming Spring, 2011, the possibility of such charges boded very well as the possibly intended premise for that second season.
Ultimately, TLC's new reality show, "Sister Wives," helped intelligent people learn that consenting adult polygamy is not like most of the false stereotypes and lies of the manufactured-news outlets. The Brown women were all married as adults, all could clearly think for themselves, and all could definitely speak their minds quite vocally. With their massive house, quality cars, and well-kept furniture, the Brown family certainly showed that they are not living in squalor. They effectively presented themselves as a family with real feelings, as a family that functions well for them, and as a family that is committed to raising all their children to be good and contributing members of society. By airing "Sister Wives," TLC finally lived up to the "L" of its name, "The Learning Channel," regarding polygamy.
For the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults who now view TLC with still-cautious hopefulness, what remains to be seen is whether or not "The Learning Channel" will continue living up to that "learning" standard "about polygamy."
###
Bibliographic URLs:
Sister Wives
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sister-wives/
My Husband's 3 Wives, Sept. 24, 2006
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905356/
Forbidden Love: Polygamy, Nov 16, 2008
http://dawnporter.net/blog/tlc-my-shows-are-going-out-in-americaeeeek
Police Investigating Sister Wives Stars for Felony Bigamy
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20429667,00.html
Jonathan Turley
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/50427334-81/attorney-wives-browns-sister.html.csp
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0025
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0026
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0042
[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.]
Word Count: 2200 words
Cross-Reference: Sister Wives, TLC, Brown family
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0080
TLC's 'Sister Wives' puts the 'L' back in 'The Learning Channel'
Despite TLC's past broadcasting of bigoted shows "about polygamy" which incited audiences against polygamy, the TV network changed course in 2010, actually helping viewers learn about a positive consenting adult polygamous family, with The Learning Channel's new reality show, "Sister Wives."
TLC'S PAST ANTI-POLYGAMY "REALITY" SHOWS
But prior to that new reality TV show in 2010, TLC's programming in previous years had been bigotedly harmful against normal consenting adult polygamists.
On September 24, 2006, TLC aired a would-be "documentary" called, "My Husband's 3 Wives." While claiming to be "about polygamy," the show centered on an egomaniacal man's "polygamy by affair." The national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults took note of TLC airing such a horrendously false "re-definition" of polygamy about which the movement so adamantly opposed. The married man in the show had discovered that he had fathered a child from an affair he had had years previously. So, he forced the woman upon his existing family and called himself a "polygamist." The show focused on his attempt to later force a third woman on the family, while the first two women were not in favor of the idea. When the show was re-broadcast years later, the update at the show's conclusion stated that two of the women had left that same year in 2006, and that the first "legal wife" divorced him in 2008. Clearly, this 2006 show was never a legitimate example for learning "about polygamy."
Two years later, on November 16, 2008, TLC aired another show, "Forbidden Love: Polygamy." While claiming to be "about polygamy," this would-be "documentary" was simply one attractive, young British lady's anti-polygamous viewpoints about Mormon polygamists. The national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults again took note of TLC airing such a twisted anti-polygamy show. The would-be "reporter," Dawn Porter, manipulated two different Mormon polygamous families - after her producers had been rejected by the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults. She exploited the feelings of one Mormon polygamous family's "first wife's" feelings to make polygamy look as being hurtful to women. With a different family, Porter also cleverly manipulated the media-inexperienced naiveté of an obviously-unwealthy Mormon polygamous man, housing his family in a remote trailer in the desert which she presented as apparent-squalor. With leading questions, she verbally positioned the scruffy, pot-bellied gentleman to actually say that he would be unfaithful if he was not a polygamist. As he unwittingly fell right into her ploy, Porter subsequently exploited his asserted "selfishness" as her supposedly "confirmed" definition of "man's view of polygamy." And when she left the family's trailer in the end, she over-dramatically "caught her breath" to proclaim her insult, "That was nuts! That was properly nuts!" Clearly, this 2008 show was never a legitimate example for learning "about polygamy," either.
With that track record of broadcasting such offensively misrepresented shows "about polygamy," TLC was definitely not trusted by most normal consenting adult polygamists by 2008. Hence, when producers pitching a show they intended to sell to TLC came seeking for a willing family to do a reality series from the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults, it was no wonder that few families felt safe enough to work with them.
"SISTER WIVES" – THE BROWN FAMILY TAKES CHANCE TRUSTING TLC
Even so, one family did accept the dangerously risky chance with the producers of the show for TLC; and, the result was a new series titled, "Sister Wives." The one-hour premiere aired on September 26, 2010, followed by two one-half-hour episodes on each of the next three Sunday evenings. A one-hour "Interview Special" later aired on November 1, followed by a pre-taped "Honeymoon Special" episode on November 21, 2010.
Consequently, the renowned Oprah Winfrey show on CBS even broadcast her own interview with the Brown family on October 14, which was re-aired again on November 30, 2010. Therewith, Oprah Winfrey - for her very first time - actually presented a positive show "about polygamy," undistorted with the false stereotypes pre-supposed by her uninformed bigotries evident in her previous shows throughout the years on the topic. Hence, Oprah Winfrey apparently may have had an "aha moment" herself "about polygamy" – similarly as those of many of the show's viewers.
As "Sister Wives" revealed, Kody Brown (aged 42) legally married his first wife, Meri (aged 39), as young adults 20 years ago – she had one child. Janelle (aged 40) was friends with Meri and Kody before she had an unlicensed marriage with Kody 17 years ago - she had 6 children. Christine (aged 37) had an unlicensed marriage with Kody 16 years ago – she had 5 children and the sixth was born during taping of the show. This first season of "Sister Wives" focused on currently welcoming a fourth wife, Robyn (aged 31), in to the family with an unlicensed marriage too - she was a divorced single mom bringing three young children from that previous marriage. By the end of the show's Season One, the family consisted of one husband, four wives (although only one was "legally married"), and 16 children - a total of 21 individuals.
While the Brown family is definitely a Mormon polygamous family, the show rarely displayed that fact. Indeed, the family presented itself as very obviously modern, wearing clearly-modern clothes and hairstyles. The family is apparently so "secularized" that second wife, Janelle, even mentioned the need to have caffeine at one point in the very last "special" episode - something which even many "mainstream Mormons" still refuse to consume.
Undoubtedly, however, the Browns' reason for so many children is completely premised in specifically Mormon religious doctrine, a particular paradigm which separates Mormon polygamy from other forms of consenting adult polygamy around the country. Moreover, while three of the Brown family's wives had grown up in Mormon polygamous communities, most consenting adult polygamists around the country have no connections to anything Mormon-based and do not live in polygamous communities. Yet, the Brown family mostly kept their religious beliefs out of the show, simply presenting themselves as a modern – even somewhat secularized – family of four adult women and one adult husband who intentionally chose to live polygamously.
THE FOUR WIVES ON "SISTER WIVES"
Aptly titled, "Sister Wives," emphasis on the show was primarily directed toward the wives, their interactions, and their views of life as they live it. Each of the wives clearly presented different feelings, opinions, goals, and what they get out of their polygamous family. Without question, husband Kody Brown made it known that he is well aware that they are four strong women who absolutely speak their minds!
First wife, Meri, grew up in a Mormon polygamous family. When Kody's father converted to the particular community involving Mormon polygamy, Kody was introduced to polygamy at that time. Because of Meri's growing up in a polygamous family and the Mormon polygamous religious doctrine of having many children, she always expected to be married that way too. As they indicated, she was presented as having been the subtle "push" behind Kody actually marrying all three of the other wives. During the show, Meri was working at a part-time job - which she later lost after the publicity of the show aired. She also expressed that she wanted to go back to school for more education. Due to infertility issues, Meri tearfully explained that she was blessed with only one daughter and that she had experienced a miscarriage with the one other time she was pregnant. She stated that she had always wanted lots of children, and, if it was not for polygamy, a "monogamous version" of her family would have then only consisted of three people – something she would not ever want.
Second wife, Janelle, joined the family of Kody and Meri after they had been married for three years already. Unlike Meri, though, Janelle had grown up in non-polygamous "mainstream Mormonism." She was friends with Meri and Kody for some time - even thinking of them as the only "Mormon polygamous friends" she knew. She later described her relationship with Kody as always very much on a deep friendship basis - as well as her closeness with Meri - from the beginning. For Janelle, polygamy allowed her to be able to focus on work. Indeed, Janelle presented herself as very much the working mother, and she made it clear how much she appreciated the freedom to be able to do so while equally knowing that her six children were also well-cared-for at home.
Third wife, Christine, joined Kody, Meri, and Janelle one year after Janelle's marriage. Like Meri, she, too, had grown up in the Mormon polygamous paradigm. She stated that she had always wanted to be the third wife, explaining that she had always wanted the family with the women. Hence, entering the Brown polygamous family was ideal for her. In the same way that Janelle thoroughly enjoyed the freedom to work that her polygamous family situation made possible, Christine explained that she equally enjoyed the freedom to be the stay-at-home mom who cares for the children throughout the day.
Fourth wife, Robyn, was in the process of courting Kody as the first season of "Sister Wives" began. She originally came from another Mormon polygamous community that was a five-hour-drive away. Robyn was divorced from her three children's father who was not a polygamist himself. Not only was she quite comfortable with polygamy, but she very much wanted to be part of the Brown family. Before they all met, Meri had first noticed Robyn at a gathering and had mentioned to Kody to consider Robyn – again, Meri being the subtle "push" that led to Kody marrying another woman. Eventually, the Brown family helped Robyn and her three children move to a home nearby, located only one mile away from the huge Brown house instead of being the distance of the five-hour-drive. The last episode culminated in Robyn's wedding with Kody; and, the subsequent "Honeymoon Special" focused on both her honeymoon with Kody as well as on revealing the expressed feelings of the other three wives during that 11-day getaway. For Robyn, she shared that marrying Kody meant receiving the joy of the larger family for both herself and her three children.
WILL MORE LEARNING "ABOUT POLYGAMY" CONTINUE ON TLC?
Within the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults, most families and supporters are very happy to see that TLC positively presented a modern, consenting adult polygamous family (notwithstanding that many polygamous families around the country are not from the Mormon polygamous paradigms, of course). Even so, though, as bigamy laws still remain on the books in all states, most polygamous families still do not feel safe enough to take the same public risks that the Brown family took.
Indeed, soon after the show first aired, media-hyped news broke that the Lehi, Utah, police were considering filing charges against the Brown family - for breaking Utah's bigamy laws. Renowned Constitutional Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, joined the public fray as their attorney in the event that such charges might be actually filed. (Over the last few years, Professor Turley had been publicly repeating the arguments already made by the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults – thereby, embracing and validating those arguments.) Although Kody had only "legally married" Meri, some state laws - as in Utah - actually criminalize the free speech of a married man even calling an unlicensed woman as a "wife." Even unlicensed cohabitation that has simply the "appearance" of being polygamous can be a crime. Although no charges were filed by the time that Season One of "Sister Wives" ended, the possibility of such charges being filed still remained possible. As TLC announced that it would indeed begin airing Season Two in the coming Spring, 2011, the possibility of such charges boded very well as the possibly intended premise for that second season.
Ultimately, TLC's new reality show, "Sister Wives," helped intelligent people learn that consenting adult polygamy is not like most of the false stereotypes and lies of the manufactured-news outlets. The Brown women were all married as adults, all could clearly think for themselves, and all could definitely speak their minds quite vocally. With their massive house, quality cars, and well-kept furniture, the Brown family certainly showed that they are not living in squalor. They effectively presented themselves as a family with real feelings, as a family that functions well for them, and as a family that is committed to raising all their children to be good and contributing members of society. By airing "Sister Wives," TLC finally lived up to the "L" of its name, "The Learning Channel," regarding polygamy.
For the national polygamy rights movement for consenting adults who now view TLC with still-cautious hopefulness, what remains to be seen is whether or not "The Learning Channel" will continue living up to that "learning" standard "about polygamy."
###
Bibliographic URLs:
Sister Wives
http://tlc.discovery.com/tv/sister-wives/
My Husband's 3 Wives, Sept. 24, 2006
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905356/
Forbidden Love: Polygamy, Nov 16, 2008
http://dawnporter.net/blog/tlc-my-shows-are-going-out-in-americaeeeek
Police Investigating Sister Wives Stars for Felony Bigamy
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20429667,00.html
Jonathan Turley
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/50427334-81/attorney-wives-browns-sister.html.csp
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0025
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0026
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0042
[Reviewed for publication - Pro-Polygamy.com Review Board.]
Monday, November 29, 2010
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
MAY YOUR THANKSGIVING HAVE BEEN ONE OF THANKFULNESS AND MAY YOUR CHRISTMAS BE ONE OF JOY.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
FAMILY TIES
Hey All ...
While watching the sisterwives show I remember them saying they all had individual wedding rings but also all wives wore a claddagh (sp?) ring on their right hand.
Got me intrigued.
Though myself I'm not a huge ring person I was thinking it would be nice to have a such a "family" ring.
Any thoughts or input ??
While watching the sisterwives show I remember them saying they all had individual wedding rings but also all wives wore a claddagh (sp?) ring on their right hand.
Got me intrigued.
Though myself I'm not a huge ring person I was thinking it would be nice to have a such a "family" ring.
Any thoughts or input ??
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Got me thinking......
After watching the sisterwives show on tlc the other night, I was sitting and
thinking about what things were important for me and to me as a 1st wife in
regards of when another wife was/is added.
Bonding time w/ the GF.
First and foremost, I had to have bonding time with the new lady. Just her and
I. Don't try moving a stranger into my home!
LOL......this was/is not a problem since we are strong love-not-force people.
But even if there is a bond that doesn't guarantee a smooth transition.
So, here are more of my scattered thoughts......
A vehicle.
With a vehicle at your disposal - that way if the hubs is out on a "date", ya
don't feel trapped and abandoned...just hop in and go somewhere, anywhere, even
to the coffeeshop lol.
Spending money.
Ok ok, I can hear you saying,"money is too tight, there is no extra". To this I
say POPPYCOCK ! I'm not talking about the kind of spending allowances the
wealthy get. but I think it is important for all wives to have spending money.
In most homes money is pooled and one person handles the finances - hence the
need for "spending money" - keeps you from feeling like workhorses. So, even if
it's a minimal as $5.00 per week..it's necessary and should be included in the
household budget. LOL
Dates.
Yes dates. No not all together. Just the 2 of us. Not every week necessarily,
but definately occasionally. And the dates don't have to be anything more than
hanging out somewhere for a few hours. This is especially essential when hubs is
dating a gf. This will help squelch the "you do things with HER! You never do
anything with ME anymore!" feelings. (GROCERY SHOPPING AND DR APPOINTMENTS ARE
NOT DATES!)
Individuality appreciated.
A big peeve (personally) is being compared to others. It is probably stemming
from being the baby in a large family, but it really makes me wanna scream
whenever it happens. So - Don't say "so&so cleans a room in this order" or
"maybe you should try doing such and such like so&so does". Yes, it is very
possible that she has a better way. I'm not so pompous as to think I'm good at
everything, but for pete's sake - DO NOT COMPARE ME TO ANYONE! lol....it could
result in the unfortunate accident of my hand meeting your head ;-)
Compliment a strength rather than point out a weakness.
Quick response time.
Texts, phone calls, emails - even if ya can't talk right then, a response is
needed. It gives peace of mind that you are important and acknowledged. This
does NOT mean that repeated contact should happen if ya know hubs is on a date
w/ the gf...I mean really! Would you like that happening if it were YOUR date ?
Space.
That's right I said space. Whether it be a whole room, or just a desk, it is
important to have a space that is all yours. This allows you some individuality.
Some people have said to me "then you are really not understanding what a family
is". UMMM....yeah...let me ask this...do you have siblings? did you all share
everything ? Did you all stay in the same room using one bureau? Doubt it. Same
thing as I am saying - we all need a little bit of personal space - to retain
our individuality.
Boundaries.
Hmmm, this one might pertain only to me personally. I have heirloom items that
cannot be replaced. Are they expensive? No. But if I express that I don't want
them touched then don't touch them unless absolutely necessary - and even then
BE CAREFUL !
Maybe that last one sounds very petty, but for me it's important.
Ok lastly........
Emotions.
They do exist. They are natural and healthy. I have them, you have them, even
men have them. Though i do agree that issues and feelings need to be out in the
open and discussed, sometimes one needs time to process what & how they are
feeling BEFORE discussing it. It helps make the discussion more rational -
belive me. Point being - never ever ever ever ever say to me (or anyone), "you
don't/shouldn't really think that, feel that way". right or wrong it is what it
is.
That about sums it up....any thoughts ?
thinking about what things were important for me and to me as a 1st wife in
regards of when another wife was/is added.
Bonding time w/ the GF.
First and foremost, I had to have bonding time with the new lady. Just her and
I. Don't try moving a stranger into my home!
LOL......this was/is not a problem since we are strong love-not-force people.
But even if there is a bond that doesn't guarantee a smooth transition.
So, here are more of my scattered thoughts......
A vehicle.
With a vehicle at your disposal - that way if the hubs is out on a "date", ya
don't feel trapped and abandoned...just hop in and go somewhere, anywhere, even
to the coffeeshop lol.
Spending money.
Ok ok, I can hear you saying,"money is too tight, there is no extra". To this I
say POPPYCOCK ! I'm not talking about the kind of spending allowances the
wealthy get. but I think it is important for all wives to have spending money.
In most homes money is pooled and one person handles the finances - hence the
need for "spending money" - keeps you from feeling like workhorses. So, even if
it's a minimal as $5.00 per week..it's necessary and should be included in the
household budget. LOL
Dates.
Yes dates. No not all together. Just the 2 of us. Not every week necessarily,
but definately occasionally. And the dates don't have to be anything more than
hanging out somewhere for a few hours. This is especially essential when hubs is
dating a gf. This will help squelch the "you do things with HER! You never do
anything with ME anymore!" feelings. (GROCERY SHOPPING AND DR APPOINTMENTS ARE
NOT DATES!)
Individuality appreciated.
A big peeve (personally) is being compared to others. It is probably stemming
from being the baby in a large family, but it really makes me wanna scream
whenever it happens. So - Don't say "so&so cleans a room in this order" or
"maybe you should try doing such and such like so&so does". Yes, it is very
possible that she has a better way. I'm not so pompous as to think I'm good at
everything, but for pete's sake - DO NOT COMPARE ME TO ANYONE! lol....it could
result in the unfortunate accident of my hand meeting your head ;-)
Compliment a strength rather than point out a weakness.
Quick response time.
Texts, phone calls, emails - even if ya can't talk right then, a response is
needed. It gives peace of mind that you are important and acknowledged. This
does NOT mean that repeated contact should happen if ya know hubs is on a date
w/ the gf...I mean really! Would you like that happening if it were YOUR date ?
Space.
That's right I said space. Whether it be a whole room, or just a desk, it is
important to have a space that is all yours. This allows you some individuality.
Some people have said to me "then you are really not understanding what a family
is". UMMM....yeah...let me ask this...do you have siblings? did you all share
everything ? Did you all stay in the same room using one bureau? Doubt it. Same
thing as I am saying - we all need a little bit of personal space - to retain
our individuality.
Boundaries.
Hmmm, this one might pertain only to me personally. I have heirloom items that
cannot be replaced. Are they expensive? No. But if I express that I don't want
them touched then don't touch them unless absolutely necessary - and even then
BE CAREFUL !
Maybe that last one sounds very petty, but for me it's important.
Ok lastly........
Emotions.
They do exist. They are natural and healthy. I have them, you have them, even
men have them. Though i do agree that issues and feelings need to be out in the
open and discussed, sometimes one needs time to process what & how they are
feeling BEFORE discussing it. It helps make the discussion more rational -
belive me. Point being - never ever ever ever ever say to me (or anyone), "you
don't/shouldn't really think that, feel that way". right or wrong it is what it
is.
That about sums it up....any thoughts ?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
FALL HAS ARRIVED !!!!
Loving it. Crisp air yet still comfortable. Fresh apples right off the trees. Hot apple cider. Leaves changing colors.
And............
CROCHET ! I haul out my crochet projects when Fall arrives. I buy yarn when Fall arrives. I get the crochetting fever when Fall arrives :-)
So consider yourself warned.....my fever is contagious and I usually infect at least one person every year ...LOL.
When you find yourself sitting on a porch with a crochet hook and ball of yarn, think of me and smile.
And............
CROCHET ! I haul out my crochet projects when Fall arrives. I buy yarn when Fall arrives. I get the crochetting fever when Fall arrives :-)
So consider yourself warned.....my fever is contagious and I usually infect at least one person every year ...LOL.
When you find yourself sitting on a porch with a crochet hook and ball of yarn, think of me and smile.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
(Special Report from Pro-Polygamy.com) Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
I got this yesterday. It is so amazing....we can really use this argument!
Blessings,
Sunnie
Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0079
TEASER LINE
Joseph Henrich, from the University of British Columbia, filed
a biased anti-polygamy report for a Canadian Supreme Court case
considering the issue of polygamy. The report regurgitated the
unproven "unmarried criminals" theory without source-attribution,
used the same flawed interpretation technique which his other
published academic research denounced, and contradicted
established economic principles and easily available evidence
in Western societies that actually indicate an under-supply
of men who want to marry women.
=====================================
============ OUTLINE ==============
=====================================
-------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction:
"Scholar" Never Thought about Polygamy Before
-------------------------------------------------
1.1. FOREWORD
1.2. HENRICH FILED ANTI-POLYGAMY REPORT TO COURT
--------------------------------------------------
2. Discredit #1:
Copied the "Unmarried Criminals" Theory
--------------------------------------------------
2.1. THE UNFOUNDED THEORIES REGURGITATED
2.2. NOT HENRICH'S OWN THEORY
2.3. JONATHAN RAUCH IN 2006
2.4. ROBERT WRIGHT ORIGINATED THE THEORY IN 1994 BOOK
2.5. HENRICH COPYING RAUCH COPYING WRIGHT
-------------------------------------------------
3. Discredit #2:
Henrich's Other Research Set Standard
-------------------------------------------------
3.1. HENRICH'S OTHER RESEARCH ONE MONTH BEFORE
3.2. WESTERN SOCIETIES ARE UNUSUAL FROM OTHER SOCIETIES
3.3. CONFINE INTERPRETATIONS ONLY TO SAMPLED POPULATIONS
3.4. HENRICH DREW THE VERY INFERENCE HIS OTHER RESEARCH DECRIED
-------------------------------------------------
4. Discredit #3:
Under-Supply of Men Wanting Marriage
-------------------------------------------------
4.1. ECONOMICS & EVIDENCE IN WESTERN SOCIETIES NOT CONSIDERED
4.2. NO "IMBALANCE" FROM ALLOWED MULTIPLE GIRLFRIENDS
4.3. THREE EVIDENCES IMPACTING WESTERN MARRIAGE RATIOS
-------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion:
Henrich's Anti-Polygamy Report is Discredited
-------------------------------------------------
5.1. DISCREDITED THREE WAYS
5.2. CHIEF JUSTICE CAN DISMISS HENRICH'S DISCREDITED REPORT
=====================================
To read this, go to:
Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0079
Blessings,
Sunnie
Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0079
TEASER LINE
Joseph Henrich, from the University of British Columbia, filed
a biased anti-polygamy report for a Canadian Supreme Court case
considering the issue of polygamy. The report regurgitated the
unproven "unmarried criminals" theory without source-attribution,
used the same flawed interpretation technique which his other
published academic research denounced, and contradicted
established economic principles and easily available evidence
in Western societies that actually indicate an under-supply
of men who want to marry women.
=====================================
============ OUTLINE ==============
=====================================
-------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction:
"Scholar" Never Thought about Polygamy Before
-------------------------------------------------
1.1. FOREWORD
1.2. HENRICH FILED ANTI-POLYGAMY REPORT TO COURT
--------------------------------------------------
2. Discredit #1:
Copied the "Unmarried Criminals" Theory
--------------------------------------------------
2.1. THE UNFOUNDED THEORIES REGURGITATED
2.2. NOT HENRICH'S OWN THEORY
2.3. JONATHAN RAUCH IN 2006
2.4. ROBERT WRIGHT ORIGINATED THE THEORY IN 1994 BOOK
2.5. HENRICH COPYING RAUCH COPYING WRIGHT
-------------------------------------------------
3. Discredit #2:
Henrich's Other Research Set Standard
-------------------------------------------------
3.1. HENRICH'S OTHER RESEARCH ONE MONTH BEFORE
3.2. WESTERN SOCIETIES ARE UNUSUAL FROM OTHER SOCIETIES
3.3. CONFINE INTERPRETATIONS ONLY TO SAMPLED POPULATIONS
3.4. HENRICH DREW THE VERY INFERENCE HIS OTHER RESEARCH DECRIED
-------------------------------------------------
4. Discredit #3:
Under-Supply of Men Wanting Marriage
-------------------------------------------------
4.1. ECONOMICS & EVIDENCE IN WESTERN SOCIETIES NOT CONSIDERED
4.2. NO "IMBALANCE" FROM ALLOWED MULTIPLE GIRLFRIENDS
4.3. THREE EVIDENCES IMPACTING WESTERN MARRIAGE RATIOS
-------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion:
Henrich's Anti-Polygamy Report is Discredited
-------------------------------------------------
5.1. DISCREDITED THREE WAYS
5.2. CHIEF JUSTICE CAN DISMISS HENRICH'S DISCREDITED REPORT
=====================================
To read this, go to:
Scholar's Anti-Polygamy Report for Court is Discredited
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0079
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Hellooooooooo
Well, wow, September already....sheesh....where did the summer go !
It was a good summer though. Vacation was very restful and fun. Polygamy Day was a blast too.
So, just a quick HELLOOOOOO from me until next time.
Blessings all !
It was a good summer though. Vacation was very restful and fun. Polygamy Day was a blast too.
So, just a quick HELLOOOOOO from me until next time.
Blessings all !
Thursday, August 5, 2010
BROKEN TOYS
Broken Toys
As children bring their broken toys,
With tears, for us to mend;
I brought my broken dreams to God
because he was my friend.
But then instead of leaving him in peace to work alone,
I hung around and tried to help with ways that were my own.
At last, I snatched them back and cried,
"How could you be so slow?"
"My child," He said, "What could I do?
You never did let go...."
author unknown
As children bring their broken toys,
With tears, for us to mend;
I brought my broken dreams to God
because he was my friend.
But then instead of leaving him in peace to work alone,
I hung around and tried to help with ways that were my own.
At last, I snatched them back and cried,
"How could you be so slow?"
"My child," He said, "What could I do?
You never did let go...."
author unknown
Friday, July 30, 2010
Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
I got this the other day....and I saw it in Google News. I think it tells this
news in the best way for us.
Blessings
Sunnie
Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0076
TEASER LINE
Unanimously determining that the lower court had given
improper instructions to the jury in the original 2007
trial, the Utah State Supreme Court reversed the two
"felony rape as an accomplice" convictions of Warren Jeffs
- leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the FLDS – for his
ordering the arranged marriage of an unmarried 19 year
old young man to his 14 year old cousin, Elissa Wall.
On July 27, 2010, in a unanimous 4-0 decision, the Utah Supreme Court
reversed the two convictions of Warren Jeffs and ordered a re-trial.
The leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), Jeffs had been convicted in Utah, in
2007, of two counts of felony rape as an accomplice. The convictions
pertained to Jeffs being the religious leader who ordered the 2001 arranged
marriage of an unmarried young man who was only 19 to his 14 year old
cousin. Notwithstanding that many media erroneously labeled Jeffs as a
"polygamist leader," the case only involved arranged marriage, under-aged
marriage, and incest in a rogue Mormon sect. But it never involved
polygamy.
At the time of Jeffs' convictions, Allen Steed - the teenager who had been
19 at the time of the arranged marriage - had not even been charged with
rape. As the Associated Press reported, "Steed was charged with rape the
day after Jeffs' September 2007 conviction, but the case has languished and
it's unclear how it might now proceed." No court has yet determined a
conviction that the actual crime of rape itself had occurred. The lower
court had convicted Jeffs of being an accomplice to a crime while the actual
crime, itself, had not yet been proven by conviction.
So, as according to The Washington Times, "The court declared a mistrial on
the grounds that jurors were wrongly told they could decide in judging Mr.
Jeffs whether the marital relations between Miss Wall and Mr. Steed were
consensual. Mr. Steed was not charged with rape, pending Mr. Jeffs'
conviction, and still has not been tried."
The Associated Press explained, "In its ruling Tuesday, the court agreed
with defense attorneys who argued that jurors should not have been told to
decide whether Wall's marital relations were consensual based on Jeffs'
actions and his role as her religious leader. That essentially equates Jeffs
with Steed - the person who allegedly has had nonconsensual sex. Justices
said prosecutors were wrong to make that leap."
Both of those media reported that the Court's justices wrote, "Only after
there is a determination that an offense has been committed can the law
impose liability on another party who 'solicited, requested, commanded,
encouraged or intentionally aided' in the commission of that offense."
The prosecution has the option to request a rehearing before the Utah
Supreme Court. If no request is made by August 10, 2010, the re-trial
proceeds back down at the 5th District Court. Assistant Utah Attorney
General Laura DuPaix "said no decision has been made about whether to
prosecute Jeffs again," the Associated Press reported. Utah Attorney
General Mark Shurtleff said, "it would be tough to retry him here because we
don't have much to hold him on as an accomplice to rape," The Washington
Times reported.
Beyond even the issues raised by the Utah Supreme Court's decision, a
re-trial of Jeffs' case might be less likely to achieve convictions.
Emerging evidence about Elissa Wall has been raising valid credibility
concerns.
The Associated Press reported, "Jeffs faced charges of accomplice to sexual
conduct with a minor in Arizona, but they were dismissed last month after
prosecutors said the two alleged victims no longer wanted to proceed with
prosecution."
Back on June 10, 2010, a report at Pro-Polygamy.com reported that AZCentral
had reported that Jeffs' defense attorney Michael Piccarreta - speaking
about the dismissal of the charges in Arizona - "said he believes the
charges were dismissed because the victim, the chief accuser in the
government's case, made false statements during the Utah trial and to
officials in Arizona that undermined her credibility... (He) said a midwife
who was scheduled to be a witness in the Arizona case recently admitted
re-creating and backdating records of Wall's miscarriage, an event that
verified the marriage was consummated while she was underage. According to
Piccarreta, Wall misrepresented the medical records during Jeff's first
trial in St. George, Utah, and during a more recent discovery interview."
Over a month later, the Associated Press reported that the July 27, 2010,
"ruling from Utah's high court comes as Washington County authorities
investigate allegations that Wall may have lied about her medical records
that were used in the trial. County Attorney Brock Belnap launched an
investigation in February after he was told by a third party that Wall's
'medical records had all been created in one day to make it look like she
had seen a caretaker on several different occasions.'"
In an extremely more-than-unusual co-incidence, ABC re-broadcast its
anti-polygamy episode of "What Would YOU Do?" on the very same night that
the Utah Supreme Court overturned Jeffs' convictions in the case involving
Elissa Wall. Hosted by the most dishonest media personality about polygamy
throughout all the media, John Quiñones, the anti-polygamy segment had
teamed up with Elissa Wall. They hired actors to dress up in stereotypical
FLDS clothing and pretend to be "polygamists" forcing polygamy on a 15 year
old "child-bride" actress in a public restaurant.
After that anti-polygamy propaganda - of invented fiction - first aired on
ABC in 2009, National Polygamy Advocate, Mark Henkel, composed a
comprehensive Special Report about it. The article-description explained,
"On March 17, 2009, ABC-TV's new 'unreality' show, 'What Would YOU Do?,'
teased the question for one of its segments, asking, 'How far would you go
for money and fame?' The host, John Quinones, asked someone on the show, 'So
you would lie for money?' But the reality is – as yet again proven in a
separate set-up segment with actors pretending to be 'polygamists' in the
same episode - John Quinones, himself, has repeatedly lied for money and
fame.' That Special Report was distributed to the media through
Pro-Polygamy.com on April 3, 2009.
The third section of that Special Report specifically reported about Elissa
Wall's turning her actual suffering into dishonesty for money-making.
Before exposing her dishonesty, the Special Report made it adamantly clear:
"Without question, the hearts of such regular pro-polygamists around the
country had always gone out to Elissa Wall for what that Mormon sect had
forced upon her."
The Special Report then explained, "Elissa Wall... had come out of the FLDS
- that same, one criminal sect about which Quiñones repeatedly used in order
to slander all normal polygamists. ...She embraced Quiñones' offer and
allowed her real story of cult-style abuse by the FLDS to be erroneously
misused. She allowed Quiñones to slander all consenting-adult
pro-polygamists whose hearts otherwise deeply sympathize with her."
Identifying the reason why Elissa Wall had allowed herself to be so used,
the Special Report revealed the evidence, "Her motivation to allow Quiñones'
deception was revealed on the show: Elissa Wall stood to make money and fame
by selling a book she had written about the FLDS, ...as if being about 'all
polygamy.' Hence, Elissa Wall had (disappointingly) fully sold out, seeking
to earn money and fame by allowing her story of real cultish abuse in the
FLDS Mormon sect to thereby falsely imply that it had anything to about
polygamy - when it did not."
Even when the Associated Press reported the Utah Supreme Court overturning
Jeffs' convictions, the reporter, Jennifer Dobner, also mentioned Elissa
Wall's book.
With such increasing evidence of Elissa Wall's dishonesty, there is a very
real possibility that she may choose to decline to testify in any re-trial.
If she had participated in any false testimony or falsification of evidence
in the previous trial, then Elissa Wall, herself, could face criminal
charges. If that is the case, she would have strong motivation to not
testify again against Jeffs in a re-trial. And if she did refuse to
testify, not only would that refusal strongly implicate her own likely guilt
of alleged false testimony or of alleged falsification of evidence, but it
also could possibly force the Utah prosecution to actually "have" to drop
the Utah charges against Warren Jeffs.
In the meantime, Texas has been seeking to extradite Jeffs to that State.
As the Associated Press reported, "Texas authorities used family records
gathered during a 2008 raid on a church ranch near Eldorado to charge Jeffs
with bigamy, sexual assault of a child and aggravated assault. The charges
allege marriages between Jeffs and girls ages 17 and 15 in 2005. In an
e-mail to The Associated Press last week, Bugden said Jeffs intends to
oppose extradition. It's expected that Texas authorities will have to start
a new proceeding to continue efforts to extradite Jeffs."
Considering its options in Utah, "The Utah Attorney General's office has not
decided whether to retry Mr. Jeffs but will hold him until it can turn him
over to Texas, according to department spokesman Paul Murphy. The federal
government also has a warrant out against Mr. Jeffs for unlawful flight, he
said," reported The Washington Times.
Regardless of what happens with the various States' cases against Jeff's
very real criminality, the National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting
Adults has always, consistently, and vehemently declared its opposition to
arranged marriage, under-aged marriage, and Warren Jeffs.
-------
The Biblo URLS for this are at the bottom of this webpage...Check out the
page anyway at
Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0076
news in the best way for us.
Blessings
Sunnie
Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0076
TEASER LINE
Unanimously determining that the lower court had given
improper instructions to the jury in the original 2007
trial, the Utah State Supreme Court reversed the two
"felony rape as an accomplice" convictions of Warren Jeffs
- leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the FLDS – for his
ordering the arranged marriage of an unmarried 19 year
old young man to his 14 year old cousin, Elissa Wall.
On July 27, 2010, in a unanimous 4-0 decision, the Utah Supreme Court
reversed the two convictions of Warren Jeffs and ordered a re-trial.
The leader of the breakaway Mormon sect, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), Jeffs had been convicted in Utah, in
2007, of two counts of felony rape as an accomplice. The convictions
pertained to Jeffs being the religious leader who ordered the 2001 arranged
marriage of an unmarried young man who was only 19 to his 14 year old
cousin. Notwithstanding that many media erroneously labeled Jeffs as a
"polygamist leader," the case only involved arranged marriage, under-aged
marriage, and incest in a rogue Mormon sect. But it never involved
polygamy.
At the time of Jeffs' convictions, Allen Steed - the teenager who had been
19 at the time of the arranged marriage - had not even been charged with
rape. As the Associated Press reported, "Steed was charged with rape the
day after Jeffs' September 2007 conviction, but the case has languished and
it's unclear how it might now proceed." No court has yet determined a
conviction that the actual crime of rape itself had occurred. The lower
court had convicted Jeffs of being an accomplice to a crime while the actual
crime, itself, had not yet been proven by conviction.
So, as according to The Washington Times, "The court declared a mistrial on
the grounds that jurors were wrongly told they could decide in judging Mr.
Jeffs whether the marital relations between Miss Wall and Mr. Steed were
consensual. Mr. Steed was not charged with rape, pending Mr. Jeffs'
conviction, and still has not been tried."
The Associated Press explained, "In its ruling Tuesday, the court agreed
with defense attorneys who argued that jurors should not have been told to
decide whether Wall's marital relations were consensual based on Jeffs'
actions and his role as her religious leader. That essentially equates Jeffs
with Steed - the person who allegedly has had nonconsensual sex. Justices
said prosecutors were wrong to make that leap."
Both of those media reported that the Court's justices wrote, "Only after
there is a determination that an offense has been committed can the law
impose liability on another party who 'solicited, requested, commanded,
encouraged or intentionally aided' in the commission of that offense."
The prosecution has the option to request a rehearing before the Utah
Supreme Court. If no request is made by August 10, 2010, the re-trial
proceeds back down at the 5th District Court. Assistant Utah Attorney
General Laura DuPaix "said no decision has been made about whether to
prosecute Jeffs again," the Associated Press reported. Utah Attorney
General Mark Shurtleff said, "it would be tough to retry him here because we
don't have much to hold him on as an accomplice to rape," The Washington
Times reported.
Beyond even the issues raised by the Utah Supreme Court's decision, a
re-trial of Jeffs' case might be less likely to achieve convictions.
Emerging evidence about Elissa Wall has been raising valid credibility
concerns.
The Associated Press reported, "Jeffs faced charges of accomplice to sexual
conduct with a minor in Arizona, but they were dismissed last month after
prosecutors said the two alleged victims no longer wanted to proceed with
prosecution."
Back on June 10, 2010, a report at Pro-Polygamy.com reported that AZCentral
had reported that Jeffs' defense attorney Michael Piccarreta - speaking
about the dismissal of the charges in Arizona - "said he believes the
charges were dismissed because the victim, the chief accuser in the
government's case, made false statements during the Utah trial and to
officials in Arizona that undermined her credibility... (He) said a midwife
who was scheduled to be a witness in the Arizona case recently admitted
re-creating and backdating records of Wall's miscarriage, an event that
verified the marriage was consummated while she was underage. According to
Piccarreta, Wall misrepresented the medical records during Jeff's first
trial in St. George, Utah, and during a more recent discovery interview."
Over a month later, the Associated Press reported that the July 27, 2010,
"ruling from Utah's high court comes as Washington County authorities
investigate allegations that Wall may have lied about her medical records
that were used in the trial. County Attorney Brock Belnap launched an
investigation in February after he was told by a third party that Wall's
'medical records had all been created in one day to make it look like she
had seen a caretaker on several different occasions.'"
In an extremely more-than-unusual co-incidence, ABC re-broadcast its
anti-polygamy episode of "What Would YOU Do?" on the very same night that
the Utah Supreme Court overturned Jeffs' convictions in the case involving
Elissa Wall. Hosted by the most dishonest media personality about polygamy
throughout all the media, John Quiñones, the anti-polygamy segment had
teamed up with Elissa Wall. They hired actors to dress up in stereotypical
FLDS clothing and pretend to be "polygamists" forcing polygamy on a 15 year
old "child-bride" actress in a public restaurant.
After that anti-polygamy propaganda - of invented fiction - first aired on
ABC in 2009, National Polygamy Advocate, Mark Henkel, composed a
comprehensive Special Report about it. The article-description explained,
"On March 17, 2009, ABC-TV's new 'unreality' show, 'What Would YOU Do?,'
teased the question for one of its segments, asking, 'How far would you go
for money and fame?' The host, John Quinones, asked someone on the show, 'So
you would lie for money?' But the reality is – as yet again proven in a
separate set-up segment with actors pretending to be 'polygamists' in the
same episode - John Quinones, himself, has repeatedly lied for money and
fame.' That Special Report was distributed to the media through
Pro-Polygamy.com on April 3, 2009.
The third section of that Special Report specifically reported about Elissa
Wall's turning her actual suffering into dishonesty for money-making.
Before exposing her dishonesty, the Special Report made it adamantly clear:
"Without question, the hearts of such regular pro-polygamists around the
country had always gone out to Elissa Wall for what that Mormon sect had
forced upon her."
The Special Report then explained, "Elissa Wall... had come out of the FLDS
- that same, one criminal sect about which Quiñones repeatedly used in order
to slander all normal polygamists. ...She embraced Quiñones' offer and
allowed her real story of cult-style abuse by the FLDS to be erroneously
misused. She allowed Quiñones to slander all consenting-adult
pro-polygamists whose hearts otherwise deeply sympathize with her."
Identifying the reason why Elissa Wall had allowed herself to be so used,
the Special Report revealed the evidence, "Her motivation to allow Quiñones'
deception was revealed on the show: Elissa Wall stood to make money and fame
by selling a book she had written about the FLDS, ...as if being about 'all
polygamy.' Hence, Elissa Wall had (disappointingly) fully sold out, seeking
to earn money and fame by allowing her story of real cultish abuse in the
FLDS Mormon sect to thereby falsely imply that it had anything to about
polygamy - when it did not."
Even when the Associated Press reported the Utah Supreme Court overturning
Jeffs' convictions, the reporter, Jennifer Dobner, also mentioned Elissa
Wall's book.
With such increasing evidence of Elissa Wall's dishonesty, there is a very
real possibility that she may choose to decline to testify in any re-trial.
If she had participated in any false testimony or falsification of evidence
in the previous trial, then Elissa Wall, herself, could face criminal
charges. If that is the case, she would have strong motivation to not
testify again against Jeffs in a re-trial. And if she did refuse to
testify, not only would that refusal strongly implicate her own likely guilt
of alleged false testimony or of alleged falsification of evidence, but it
also could possibly force the Utah prosecution to actually "have" to drop
the Utah charges against Warren Jeffs.
In the meantime, Texas has been seeking to extradite Jeffs to that State.
As the Associated Press reported, "Texas authorities used family records
gathered during a 2008 raid on a church ranch near Eldorado to charge Jeffs
with bigamy, sexual assault of a child and aggravated assault. The charges
allege marriages between Jeffs and girls ages 17 and 15 in 2005. In an
e-mail to The Associated Press last week, Bugden said Jeffs intends to
oppose extradition. It's expected that Texas authorities will have to start
a new proceeding to continue efforts to extradite Jeffs."
Considering its options in Utah, "The Utah Attorney General's office has not
decided whether to retry Mr. Jeffs but will hold him until it can turn him
over to Texas, according to department spokesman Paul Murphy. The federal
government also has a warrant out against Mr. Jeffs for unlawful flight, he
said," reported The Washington Times.
Regardless of what happens with the various States' cases against Jeff's
very real criminality, the National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting
Adults has always, consistently, and vehemently declared its opposition to
arranged marriage, under-aged marriage, and Warren Jeffs.
-------
The Biblo URLS for this are at the bottom of this webpage...Check out the
page anyway at
Utah Court Reverses Warren Jeffs' Convictions, Orders Re-Trial
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0076
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Is it sin or stupidity ?
Hey all.
I just came across a new blog and at first I was like 'HEY AWESOME ANOTHER PRO-POLYGAMY BLOG' .... but then it started to sound way too familar to a website I often reference.
So I checked.
*sigh*
SURE ENOUGH, the blogger lifted contect, changed a couple words, and posted it as his own! No bibliography, no link, no mention of the website he got it from :-(
Makes me wanna name him Vanilla Ice !
To me this is sin.....others might give it a pass as "stupidity".
Any thoughts ?
Frankly I am hoping the blogger will make the changes or give the credit where it is due. If not my next blog post will show it.
I just came across a new blog and at first I was like 'HEY AWESOME ANOTHER PRO-POLYGAMY BLOG' .... but then it started to sound way too familar to a website I often reference.
So I checked.
*sigh*
SURE ENOUGH, the blogger lifted contect, changed a couple words, and posted it as his own! No bibliography, no link, no mention of the website he got it from :-(
Makes me wanna name him Vanilla Ice !
To me this is sin.....others might give it a pass as "stupidity".
Any thoughts ?
Frankly I am hoping the blogger will make the changes or give the credit where it is due. If not my next blog post will show it.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
BREAKING NEWS: Arizona Dismisses Charges Against Criminal Warren Jeffs
I got this Breaking News report today....it is also in Google News.
Blessings
Sunnie
Arizona Dismisses Charges Against Criminal Warren Jeffs
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0074
As requested by the prosecutor in the Arizona case, a Judge
dismissed all charges against Warren Jeffs, returning him to
Utah where his 2007 convictions are on appeal, and expediting
the process for Jeffs to also face more serious charges in
Texas.
Blessings
Sunnie
Arizona Dismisses Charges Against Criminal Warren Jeffs
http://www.Pro-Polygamy.Com/articles.php?news=0074
As requested by the prosecutor in the Arizona case, a Judge
dismissed all charges against Warren Jeffs, returning him to
Utah where his 2007 convictions are on appeal, and expediting
the process for Jeffs to also face more serious charges in
Texas.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Hooray !!!
Just a quick note as Spring has arrived and so has the urge to not be online :-)
Hope everyone enjoys the nice weather !
Hope everyone enjoys the nice weather !
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
10th Amendment Prohibits Government Controlled Marriage
Special Report: 10th Amendment Prohibits Government Controlled Marriage
I got this news report yesterday. It's a great source of info....shows why
conservatives DO have to support polygamy rights for consenting adults.
Awesome !!!
Blessings
Sunnie
10th Amendment Prohibits Government Controlled Marriage - Quotes
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0073
The National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults
has repeatedly reminded supposed-to-be conservatives that the
10th Amendment makes government controlled marriage
unconstitutional - the exact same 10th Amendment argument
that supposed-to-be conservatives now make against the newly
passed government controlled health care.
I got this news report yesterday. It's a great source of info....shows why
conservatives DO have to support polygamy rights for consenting adults.
Awesome !!!
Blessings
Sunnie
10th Amendment Prohibits Government Controlled Marriage - Quotes
http://www.pro-polygamy.com/articles.php?news=0073
The National Polygamy Rights Movement for Consenting Adults
has repeatedly reminded supposed-to-be conservatives that the
10th Amendment makes government controlled marriage
unconstitutional - the exact same 10th Amendment argument
that supposed-to-be conservatives now make against the newly
passed government controlled health care.
Monday, March 8, 2010
National Polygamy Advocate Mark Henkel did a TV interview on the show, STOSSEL, on March 4, 2010
National Polygamy Advocate Mark Henkel did a TV interview on the show, STOSSEL, on March 4, 2010, on FOX Business Network. He persuasively made the case for consenting adult polygamy with host John Stossel. Also sitting with them, Gretchen Carlson, (co-host of "FOX & Friends") tried to present the anti-polygamy view, using very weak arguments. At the end, she tried to play the "marrying non-humans" argument. Mark Henkel quick joked back with a very humorous statement. Not only did his humorous response totally wipe out the silliness of her "what's next?" argument, but he had everyone laughing including Gretchen Carlson! It was a super way for an interview to end. The video may be seen online now, embedded directly on the website at
http://www.NationalPolygamyAdvocate.com
http://www.NationalPolygamyAdvocate.com
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
This is going to be awesome!
National Polygamy Advocate Mark Henkel is going to be on John Stossel's TV Show on Thursday night, March 4, 2010, at 8:00 pm EST on FOX Business Network. He will be on stage with John Stossel and a woman who co-hosts her own show on FOX News which is another channel. It will be re-broadcast over the next few days after that too. For channel and showtimes, see the "Facebook FAN Page" at
http://www.facebook .com/pages/ Mark-Henkel/ 120790816486
This is going to be awesome!
http://www.facebook .com/pages/ Mark-Henkel/ 120790816486
This is going to be awesome!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Spreading the word
Mark Henkel is going to be on TV this week. He will be making an excellent case for polygamy rights for consenting adults. Come join this FAN Page and find out when you can watch it! Being a FAN is one of our ways to show the media that we support polygamy rights and that they should take us seriously.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Henkel/120790816486
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mark-Henkel/120790816486
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Truth !
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause who at best, if he wins, knows the thrills of high achievement, and, if he fails, at least fails daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Friday, January 29, 2010
BITING THE HELPING HAND
There is something that I've seen in the polygamy community that greatly
disturbs me. It is the act I'll call "biting the helping hand".
First let me define something.......
According to Webster's:
Initiative is as an introductory step, energy or aptitude displayed in
initiation of action or at one's own discretion: independently of outside
influence or control.
There are two major kinds of initiative.
One is the person who has the ability or sensitivity to pick up on clues or
hints from others who have seen a need.
They will hear about a need or a comment, heed it, and go and solve the
problem. Even if they themselves never had the problem, someone did, and
they took the hint and filled that need.
The second is the "self-starter." This is the person who sees a need first
and then takes it as his mission to solve it "independently of outside
influence or control".
Our country was founded on initiative! The first settlers, the Revolutionary
warriors, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of
the Constitution! These are all folks that saw and filled needs. Can you
imagine where we all would be had they not "stepped up" ?
We are all wired differently. Some are leaders and some are more comfortable
as followers or letting others lead.
Some are the kind who don't wanna lead and don't wanna follow.......which
brings me back to the point of this post.
There is a man who saw the need for a "spokesperson" for the entire polygamy
community....one who is able to break past any stereotypes or preconceived
ideas of what and who polygamists are. This man is the National Polygamy
Advocate.
This man did not step up in order to tell people what they wanted to hear...to think he did is silly.
This is the person who sees a need first and then takes it as his mission to solve it "independently of outside influence or control".
He showed Christians that anti-polygamy is unbiblical with Christian polygamy. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed conservatives that anti-polygamy is anti limited government with the polygamy rights win-win solution. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed marriage relationship advocates that they could accept legitimate polygamy
because of love-not-force. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed anti-Mormon Americans that they can see polygamy as not connected
always to Mormonism. By getting anti-Mormons to judge polygamy based on
itself without any connection to Mormonism, he broke their mental barrier to
re-consider polygamy rights. That doesn't make him anti-Mormon, it just
means he has the right message to persuade anti-Mormons that they can accept
polygamy by not connecting it to what they as anti-Mormons don't like about
Mormonism.
(yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed feminists and egalitarians that they can see polygamy as a
positive woman's choice. By getting such women supporters to judge polygamy
as something that could help single moms and working women, he broke their
mental barrier to reconsider polygamy rights. That doesn't make him a
feminist or egalitarian, it just means he has the right message to persuade
feminists and egalitarians that they can accept polygamy by not seeing it as
if it benefits men but instead seeing it as benefiting women.
He has been able to persuade people to re-think their anti-polygamy
positions. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
Anyone who is pro-polygamy benefits from his successes in
persuading anti-polygamists. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
It doesn't matter what kind of polygamy supporter you are. He is a "self
starter" whose work has never stopped helping the polygamists! Bite marks and all.
If you're a Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, secular, whatever else.... If you support healthy good polygamy, the work of the National Polygamy Advocate is a helping hand!
To attack him is to "bite the helping hand."
I have seen people attack him... Yet I have never seen him attack anyone, not even those who attack him. That says alot.
It makes me think of how many hand biters there must have always been...The first settlers, the Revolutionary warriors, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution - all probably had hand biters attacking them...but does history speak of them ? Not that I remember from my school days.
So, seriously.......I think it is time for all to smarten up and check ourselves !
We can either be hand biters or helping hands. Does it really make good logic to bash the self-starter? To bash one who saw the need and took the initative?
We have someone who has stood up and is now recognized in the media.
Helping the National Polygamy Advocate, is helping ourselves. He has taken
the initiative, and now so can we can.
Instead of "biting the helping hand," isn't it time we helped instead.... Because it helps ourselves.
Stop "biting the helping hand".
disturbs me. It is the act I'll call "biting the helping hand".
First let me define something.......
According to Webster's:
Initiative is as an introductory step, energy or aptitude displayed in
initiation of action or at one's own discretion: independently of outside
influence or control.
There are two major kinds of initiative.
One is the person who has the ability or sensitivity to pick up on clues or
hints from others who have seen a need.
They will hear about a need or a comment, heed it, and go and solve the
problem. Even if they themselves never had the problem, someone did, and
they took the hint and filled that need.
The second is the "self-starter." This is the person who sees a need first
and then takes it as his mission to solve it "independently of outside
influence or control".
Our country was founded on initiative! The first settlers, the Revolutionary
warriors, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of
the Constitution! These are all folks that saw and filled needs. Can you
imagine where we all would be had they not "stepped up" ?
We are all wired differently. Some are leaders and some are more comfortable
as followers or letting others lead.
Some are the kind who don't wanna lead and don't wanna follow.......which
brings me back to the point of this post.
There is a man who saw the need for a "spokesperson" for the entire polygamy
community....one who is able to break past any stereotypes or preconceived
ideas of what and who polygamists are. This man is the National Polygamy
Advocate.
This man did not step up in order to tell people what they wanted to hear...to think he did is silly.
This is the person who sees a need first and then takes it as his mission to solve it "independently of outside influence or control".
He showed Christians that anti-polygamy is unbiblical with Christian polygamy. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed conservatives that anti-polygamy is anti limited government with the polygamy rights win-win solution. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed marriage relationship advocates that they could accept legitimate polygamy
because of love-not-force. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed anti-Mormon Americans that they can see polygamy as not connected
always to Mormonism. By getting anti-Mormons to judge polygamy based on
itself without any connection to Mormonism, he broke their mental barrier to
re-consider polygamy rights. That doesn't make him anti-Mormon, it just
means he has the right message to persuade anti-Mormons that they can accept
polygamy by not connecting it to what they as anti-Mormons don't like about
Mormonism.
(yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
He showed feminists and egalitarians that they can see polygamy as a
positive woman's choice. By getting such women supporters to judge polygamy
as something that could help single moms and working women, he broke their
mental barrier to reconsider polygamy rights. That doesn't make him a
feminist or egalitarian, it just means he has the right message to persuade
feminists and egalitarians that they can accept polygamy by not seeing it as
if it benefits men but instead seeing it as benefiting women.
He has been able to persuade people to re-think their anti-polygamy
positions. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
Anyone who is pro-polygamy benefits from his successes in
persuading anti-polygamists. (yet some polygamists bite the helping hand)
It doesn't matter what kind of polygamy supporter you are. He is a "self
starter" whose work has never stopped helping the polygamists! Bite marks and all.
If you're a Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, secular, whatever else.... If you support healthy good polygamy, the work of the National Polygamy Advocate is a helping hand!
To attack him is to "bite the helping hand."
I have seen people attack him... Yet I have never seen him attack anyone, not even those who attack him. That says alot.
It makes me think of how many hand biters there must have always been...The first settlers, the Revolutionary warriors, the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution - all probably had hand biters attacking them...but does history speak of them ? Not that I remember from my school days.
So, seriously.......I think it is time for all to smarten up and check ourselves !
We can either be hand biters or helping hands. Does it really make good logic to bash the self-starter? To bash one who saw the need and took the initative?
We have someone who has stood up and is now recognized in the media.
Helping the National Polygamy Advocate, is helping ourselves. He has taken
the initiative, and now so can we can.
Instead of "biting the helping hand," isn't it time we helped instead.... Because it helps ourselves.
Stop "biting the helping hand".
What is this world coming to ? LOL
I'm a big fan of the TV real estate shows like Property Virgins, My First Home, etc. Maybe I wasn't watching before with full attention but lately I've noticed something that makes me roll my eyes and sigh.
John and Jane are currently own a 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment and due to Jane being pregnant they need to find a bigger house. They are approved for $350,000.00 and have a down payment of $5,000 for a total of $355,000 to play with. John is a teacher and Jane works part time until the baby comes.
NOW.....here is the first problem for me......no way in heck can they afford the mortgage that a $355,000 house would have ! Not on a teacher's salary and a part-time job that Jane will be quitting! I hear this young couple say "the mortgage broker says we can afford it, and he does this for a living, so he must know." .....AARRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH ! Seriously ! No wonder the economy went into the toilet ! I often scream at the TV "The guy is looking for a commission ! He doesn't give a fig about you ! He is clueless what you can afford !"....but they never listen lol.
The second problem is that....and this might be a generational thing.......why do you need more bedrooms and baths than there are people in the house ?! Honestly, one couple and one baby can easily live in a 2 bedroom/1 bath house ! Heck, many of us grew up 2 or 3 kids to a room ! Over and over the shows show a 3 person family saying they need "more room" and look for 4-5 bedroom/ 2-3 bath homes ! Really !
Is it a sign of this generation ? How did they get this way ? Why can't someone snap them into reality ? LOL
I'd stop watching but I love seeing the houses...........
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment ;-)
John and Jane are currently own a 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment and due to Jane being pregnant they need to find a bigger house. They are approved for $350,000.00 and have a down payment of $5,000 for a total of $355,000 to play with. John is a teacher and Jane works part time until the baby comes.
NOW.....here is the first problem for me......no way in heck can they afford the mortgage that a $355,000 house would have ! Not on a teacher's salary and a part-time job that Jane will be quitting! I hear this young couple say "the mortgage broker says we can afford it, and he does this for a living, so he must know." .....AARRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH ! Seriously ! No wonder the economy went into the toilet ! I often scream at the TV "The guy is looking for a commission ! He doesn't give a fig about you ! He is clueless what you can afford !"....but they never listen lol.
The second problem is that....and this might be a generational thing.......why do you need more bedrooms and baths than there are people in the house ?! Honestly, one couple and one baby can easily live in a 2 bedroom/1 bath house ! Heck, many of us grew up 2 or 3 kids to a room ! Over and over the shows show a 3 person family saying they need "more room" and look for 4-5 bedroom/ 2-3 bath homes ! Really !
Is it a sign of this generation ? How did they get this way ? Why can't someone snap them into reality ? LOL
I'd stop watching but I love seeing the houses...........
Guess I'm a glutton for punishment ;-)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Happy Happy Happy
Yes, I'm happy and no I'm not drugged. Happiness for the most part is a choice and for now I CHOSE to be happy. Is my life perfect ? Nope. Do I have reasons to not be happy ? Yup. But those things are BMC (beyond-my-control) so why allow it to dictate my mood :-)
I love this prayer - it hangs on my office wall:
Oh Lord - Grant Me Calmness
O Lord, grant that nothing upsets me today as I walk through the pathway of my life.
Let not any hurtful words or actions of others shake my resolve to stay calm and even-tempered.
Help me guard the citadel of my emotions from all intruding disturbances.
Let me avoid at all costs any harmful rebuttals to those who would upset me.
Instead, help me respond with love and kindness, even when I am wronged.
Grant peace to my heart so that I may view all stressful situations with a calm detachment and total control of my emotions.
Help me focus on the example of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who taught us to love one another, to turn the other cheek to our persecutors and who asked for forgiveness for His executioners.
Oh Lord, help me bring love and not hate, light and not darkness, friendship and not enmity, hope and not despair to all those I encounter in this exciting day that lies ahead.
Fill me with wisdom to understand and accept these principles so that my life can serve as a testimony to Your Truth.
Halleluyah !
I love this prayer - it hangs on my office wall:
Oh Lord - Grant Me Calmness
O Lord, grant that nothing upsets me today as I walk through the pathway of my life.
Let not any hurtful words or actions of others shake my resolve to stay calm and even-tempered.
Help me guard the citadel of my emotions from all intruding disturbances.
Let me avoid at all costs any harmful rebuttals to those who would upset me.
Instead, help me respond with love and kindness, even when I am wronged.
Grant peace to my heart so that I may view all stressful situations with a calm detachment and total control of my emotions.
Help me focus on the example of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who taught us to love one another, to turn the other cheek to our persecutors and who asked for forgiveness for His executioners.
Oh Lord, help me bring love and not hate, light and not darkness, friendship and not enmity, hope and not despair to all those I encounter in this exciting day that lies ahead.
Fill me with wisdom to understand and accept these principles so that my life can serve as a testimony to Your Truth.
Halleluyah !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)