An interesting point from Alexis re the Alaska case

Alexis raised an interesting point in her comment on the Alaska case.

Why the silence?

It is possibly due to child protection issues. It is often the case that the names of children are kept out of reports on criminal matters, even, or perhaps especially, if the child is an innocent or injured party.

In the UK a journalist cannot name even a convicted person under -I think- the age of 18 in a report of a story, unless a judge has given special permission.

They might be trying to arrange a plea bargain with the woman concerned to try to ensure that the names of the children -adopted or otherwise- are given the least amount of publicity as possible.

Other issues (off the top of my head, interest of the Russian authorities in the case, examining of the mental capacity of the woman to take part in a trial, lack of preparedness of the case by defence or prosecution, etc. A smart lawyer might try to argue that due to the publicity surrounding the case, she would not be able to get a fair trial. But an even smarter prosecutor would say: "Who was it who asked her to get her daughter to video her disciplining the boy and send it to a highly popular national TV programme, seen by millions of people?"

We await developments with interest.

The Many Banes of My Existence by Alexis: Jessica Beagley, Dr. Phil, and Other Things

Alexis asks a very interesting question at her blog which I have linked to here:-

The Many Banes of My Existence by Alexis: Jessica Beagley, Dr. Phil, and Other Things: "Jessica Beagley, the Stake Primary President of the LDS Church who appeared on Dr. Phil to share, highlight, or lament her childrearing prac..."

Mormons that are pseuds

There are some Mormons that are pseuds. They pretend that they have great knowledge. I recall one idiot, sorry!, one General Authority (I can't remember who he was, save that he was from Utah) who said to a Stake priesthood conference session when he was addressing the Aaronic Priesthood that the boys there knew more than the most learned religious scholars (he used the term scholars in a mocking, ironic fashion) and had more power in their little finger than the Pope and also more power in their little finger than their own mothers.

This statement bothered me and when I mentioned this to my mother she said: "Perhaps he should remember who did his cooking, ironing and cleaning and who looked after him when he was a little boy?"

Looking back on it, I can see that he was going against Bible teachings: "Honour Your Parents, but don't bother to honour your mother" is not in any Bible I have ever seen. But then, perhaps it is in a spcial Bible for pseud Mormons who pretend great knowledge of af all things, yet know far, far less than even the most relatively unlearned Bible Scholar?