Waterboarding and Child Abuse
A generation ago some of the rugged men and women that we love would use water to shut a child up when it cried. Holding a child under water or ducking them to stop the crying is not at all acceptable in this day and time.
—
All this adds up to intense psychological abuse which carries with it the strong potential of being transmitted to the next generation by both those who have suffered this kind of abuse and those siblings who participated in this kind of abuse because both have seen it occur as a problem solving mechanism by those in authority over them.
—
Note: the effort to deny and protect mother and father by those who have now found distance, protection and courage enough to speak about it.
—
OH HOW WE NEED REVELATION, LOVE, FORGIVENESS, COURAGE, FAITH AND CHANGE
—
OH HOW WE NEED REVELATION IF THIS IS TO HEAL AND SALVATION IS TO COME TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED.
—
THE CYCLE MUST BE BROKEN AND MEANINGFUL CHANGE SECURED TO THE PARTIES IF WE ARE TO AVOID CIVIL PROSECUTIONS OR BRING ETERNAL SALVATION TO THESE DEAR ONES.
FLDS TEXAS 
There is no waterboarding mentioned other than instances of “ducking” a generation prior to when this was written, back when it was perfectly acceptable to beat your kids and employ verious forms of corporal punishment. Sam Barlow seems like a very kind person IMO, he also refers to a modern psychology book, since there was very little actual crime in short creek, it makes sense that most of the local police calls were for domestic issues and of course domestic violence happens in all communties of size. To attack them for domestic abuse is rank with hypocrisy
not a hater –
There is a reference to “Holding a child under water … to stop the crying.” Yes he did frame it in terms of a prior generation, only to make the point that it is not acceptable today. He was reporting on current events, so presumably there was some allegation of similar incidents in this particular family more recently than “a generation ago.” That is not to say that the practice is accepted or encouraged or even tolerated — it was happening, however, at least in some families.
Sam Barlow does seem like a kind person, I agree with you. He also seemed to be more insightful than was comfortable for the Prophet. He was very familiar with the underbelly of the FLDS, he knew the dangers and he saw that the dynamics involved with plural marriage lead to generation after generation of harmful and psychologically abusive environments for young people. Sam Barlow was the middle man between the FLDS law and the “outside” law. He knew that things had to change or the FLDS was going to suffer mightily under the law and the community would end up a collection of psychologically damaged abusers.
For his insight and progressive thinking, he was exiled and shunned by the Prophet.