Polygamist Destinies

We can make polygamy illegal in the sense that one cannot marry more than one person. But living together is no longer illegal, so how can you really prevent de facto polygamy.

Ohhhhooooo an eerie peice of bunk you have written. No doubt about it. The government caused this sect to form by denying religious rights along time ago to the LDS. Thankfully, due to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, mabye some unjustice can be undone.

As someone who writes about religion, you surely must know the difference between 'Mormons' and the polygamist sect that you are writing about. Your sloppy wording is offensive to the over 13 million 'Mormons' who are in no way affiliated with the polygamist sect. The sect members don't call themselves 'Mormons', so why are you using that label?

I second the statement made by Thomas, some sort of journalistic integrity must remain in the industry, research what you write about.

The article is fine and the issue more complex than meets the eye. In 1996 I became the FOR KIDS SAKE rep a child abuse prevention non profit, with Utah & Arizona my states. I lived in Hurricane Utah then, just 22 miles from the Hildale home of Rulon & Warren Jeffs. The abuses were very real and reported to many agencies who largely chose to ignore it.

The LDS connection is interesting, with 10,000 pages of the FLDS doctrine in text and having over 500 of Warren Jeffs audios, the similarity between the LDS & FLDS is far closer that one side only will admit. A huge problem has been the influence of LDS attorneys that see the FLDS as clients, like an ATM machine. General Authority now of the LDS church Elder Steven Snow, took $400,000. in the 1988 case of Fischer vs Johanson condeming 4 of the Thorton girls to a life in polygamy in their custody case to a non blood relative step father. 3 years later in 1991 Steven Snow and his partner David Nuffer became the city attorneys for Polygamous Colorado City for 10 years through 2001.

These are simple facts that can be looked up as public record, but will more likely be challenged, ignoring the simple research. Both the FLDS & LDS follow Brigham Young & Joseph Smith, one lives the original doctrine, the other the revision since Smith's time. Its straight forward and simple.

The FLDS are not Mormons. The vast majority of 'Mormons' only know about these polygamists from reading about them in the news.

The judge made a grave mistake returning those children to the FLDS when he knows about the child brides and the child mothers. Did he not see the photos of Warren Jeffs having sexy kisses with a 12 year old kid and an 11 year old? And he thinks such an environment is safe for children? How naive and ignorant can he get? As for the brainwashed parents ...it's already known that they have been told to lie to the authorities who, to them, represent "the beast" (Satan). The children should be removed permanently, for their sakes, before another crop of girl children are impregnated by selfish middle-aged male polygamists who use religion as a cover for having sex with young girls. They're nothing but a bunch of pedophiles. I wouldn't like to be them when they finally have to face Jesus Christ and confess the crimes they have committed in His holy name.

If you want to know the inside story of the polygamous cult lead by Warren Jeffs (who live at the YFZ Ranch in TX and in Colorado City, AZ.), check out the recent documentary BANKING ON HEAVEN. http://www.bankingonheaven.com

No FINCENMIB, the similarity is not "far closer 'that' one side only will admit."

I'm a lifelong Mormon. I've never met a polygamist. I've never met a woman forced into marriage. I've never lived in a secluded community. I swim frequently, watch TV, listen to NPR, and read the news on the 'net. My life bears NO resemblance to the way these people live.

That is why Mormons find it irritating when people try to make the 'LDS connection' out to be more than it is. Sure, some lawyers who happened to be LDS worked for them (most people in that part of the country ARE LDS - what would you expect their lawyers to be, Catholic?), and sure, SOME of our practices are similar, but PLEASE - they are not us.

FLDS are mormon fundementalists - ie - MORMONS. All you LDS may not like it, but they come from your religious background. Sorry to spoil your little "we don't know them" but they in fact come from your church.

Warren Jeffs uses the book of Mormon as long as its 1976 or older and considers the FLDS the original Mormons, he considers the LDS church the apostate church. Its true however most Latter Day Saints know little to nothing about the FLDS.

FLDS are Mormons the same way that terrorists are Muslims

Well, since the Commentocracy is lumping breakaway groups with their historical antecendents, and then broadbrushing all formerly-related religions into the same churches, let's jump on that intellectually sloppy bandwagon and declare that Anglicans are really CATHOLICS, Druze are really SUNNIS, Mahayanists are really THERAVADISTS, and all groups will forever be accountable for anything their relatives do!

Ryan

Polygamy is a tenent of the FLDS, as it was with the early church when Joseph Smith was alive. The issue of blacks or Negro's in the priesthood for the mainstream church changed by revelation in 1976, only a few decades ago. This is why Warren requires the Book of Mormon 1976 or older. He uses the old discourses and quotes the same early church in his sermons. The Cain doctrine of Cain receiving a mark after killing his brother, is what both churches discribed as being turned black. The FLDS have taken that doctrine to such an extreme that they believe the curse can occur to an unfaithful member today.

The law of consecration which Joeseph Smith lived by explains why the UEP trust was able to evict members who lost faith or fell out of favor with the priesthood. Blood Atonement is another strong issue and is still taught with the FLDS, we hope never practised. The concept of the prophet picking marriages by revelation, another doctrine well published of Joseph Smith.

There are differences, but the doctrine is of the same source, using the same text, but adhering to the text prior to the 2600 plus revisions made by the modern church today. I have the photo reprint of the Book of Mormon 1830 with its many mispelled and corrected words, it was rather thin compared to the 2008 version. I have the photo reprint of Pearl of Great Price 1851 and the FLDS with variation use the text 1976 to way back to be pure to what was the earlier practise.

The FLDS have several dozen books, but favor "In Light and Truth" by Rulon Jeffs a 1994 printing as their blueprint. This book I have and loaned to a Guardian Ad Litem representing FLDS girls in Texas. Side by side, what you have is one group living a sort of New Testament, while the other lives the Old Testament version. No different than other churches that live in the past or present of the old law or new.

My job is to provide this doctrine to both the press and of recent to prosecutors. We can argue all day about the printed text, but it is what it is and its all to easy to verify.

Every time someone from the Mormon church says the beliefs of the church "changed by revelation", I assume that means someone decided that it was God's will. Does anyone on this site actually believe that someone spoke to God and He changed his mind about something? Do you all really believe there are people on Earth that have in fact interfaced with the creator?

Pls explain, because I am having a real hard time with that concept. Like Warren Jeffs saying he determines who marries whom based on "revelations". Or the Mormon church finally letting persons of color into the preisthood was a "revelation".

Seems to me people use the "revelation" concept to either do what they should have done a long time ago, or to have things go their way. Neither of which is a "revelation".

No offense intended - just trying to understand the concept of a revelation and why no one seems to question something that by it's very nature is unbelievable.

Realitycheck: "Does anyone on this site actually believe that someone spoke to God and He changed his mind about something?"

A couple of examples:

God said that His people must bear the mark of their faith in their flesh: males must be circumcised to demonstrate their allegiance to Him.

Later, God said that circumcision wasn't necessary after all.

God said that each person will face the results of his, and no others' actions; no one can suffer for or redeem another.

Later, God sent His Son to suffer for and redeem others.

There are lots more, but this should give you the flavor of the concept --

Realitycheck: "Do you all really believe there are people on Earth that have in fact interfaced with the creator?"

Some are reputed to have done so:

Adam

Moses

Various prophets

Some in Jesus' inner circle

Paul

etc., etc.

Gosh, you saw "an eerie place, no doubt about it." Thanks for your certainty. What the hell were the Texas police doing grabbing all those kids? An "alleged" phone call: therefore take 500 kids into the State System.

By the way if sex at 16 is a felony lets go door to do and round these teenagers up. Rule of Law and all that. Talk about eerie.

Why not refer to them as Christians, they believe in Christ?

I'm sure the intentions of the writer of this article were not bad, but by using terms like "Mormon sect" and "polygamist Mormons" she only causes confusion. It is for this very reason that the Associated Press style guide recommends reporters use the term "Mormon" only to describe members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) Church. In fact, the Mormon (LDS) Church has not practiced polygamy for over 100 years, and any member found with more than one wife is excommunicated.

I took a look and have a couple of comments and questions, to wit:

1. Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. Whatever in the world made these people think they'd be welcome in Texas, and that this nonsense would be ignored?

2. Child sex abuse is illegal in all 50 states. Whatever in the world made these people think they'd be welcome in Texas, and that this nonsense would be ignored?

3. The judges who sent these children back to their child molester parents (and I include the mothers here, who are aiding and abetting the preverts) were ELECTED. That means that the majority of Texans in each district actually VOTED for those morons.

While I generally subscribe to the notion that people get the government they deserve, I don't think those children deserved this.

Just wait until we learn the story of the seized child and the amatuer cult de-programmer.

The issue wasn't really polygamy - it was forced polygamy with minors. I doubt that people would care that much about polygamy among consenting adults like the HBO series "Big Love." It's made quite clear that the family depicted there is not part of the Mormon Church, and people can enjoy watching it without feeling dirty, because all of the wives are adults.

Side point - the Druze broke off from the Shi'ite, not the Sunni Muslims.

The AP style guide states the term Mormon is to be used for members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". And not for any other group.

This sect in Texas are not Mormons. And because of peoples ignorance and the media's complicity, actual Mormons are now being targeted with vandalism and violence. Please be more responsible with your keyboard because people are being hurt with the misconceptions being perpetrated. These sects are engaging in identity theft of the Mormons and writers should not play into their hands.

Go to Lds.org or mormon.org. and educate yourself before you write!

Yes people, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Solomon, David etc. were are all POLYGAMISTS! These men once practiced polygamy as did early Mormon leaders, once upon a time.

But, not anymore. These people in Texas are in absolutely no way indicative of Mormons ways, attitudes, or lifestyles. Their relgious doctrines are antithetical to Mormons.

Martin Luther, Calvin, Knox, Hess, Huss, Henry the 8th, (ok, maybe not Henry, the Father of Anglicanism), all believed they were returning to the Original Catholic Christian Church. They became Protestants, protesting the ways of the established church.

If we follow your logic, we would not call these groups Protestants, but rather, we must call them "Fundamentalist Catholics". But, we don't now, do we?

Likewise, we should not refer to these "Polygamist Sects" as Fundamentalist Mormons, Mormon Sects etc...

The claim to the name remains with the "Original Organization". Thus, Catholics are Catholics and Mormons are Mormons. And if you want to reform or protest anything, then get your own brand or name.

How 'bout we all go out tomorrow and start a business called "Fundamental Home Depot" or "Fundamental Burger King"?
Yea, I didn't think so.

Not only do these folks not resemble Mormons of today (Mormons are "only " members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"), but they in no way even resemble Mormon's of the 1800's, which was abandoned in 1890. Any assertion that this Texas group is a look into the way things were done in early Mormonism is absolutely false, in every historical measure.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young believed in Modernity, they were progressive, establishing Universities and schools along the way.
Always looking outward, building over 300 cities and towns. They helped to Construct the Transcontinental railroad, they moved tens of thousands of immigrants accross the seas and this Continent, and have contributed soldiers to fight for America's liberty. Mormons own personal property, they have been loyal and patriotic to this Nation and abided by it's laws for generations. They have been at the forefront in every aspect of American life.

None of these charachteristics are evident in the Texas group. It's just not intellectually honest what you have implied to your readers.

The Mormons have "never" holed up into compounds and isolated themselves. They built towns and settled valleys all over the West.

And most importantly, they believe in every individuals agency to choose their own destiny, and never hold anyone against their will.

Therefore, do not confuse yourself or the readers with this polygamous sect in Texas and actual Mormons. It's unfair and simply not accurate.

Even the early leaders of Mormonism would be apalled with these sects today, they violate virtually every one of the 13 Articles of Faith.

The Pioneers of the 19th century wore different clothing than today and lived in log homes, and got to town on a horse, and cooked over a fire, etc.. Need I go on?

But, Mormons don't cling to the past, when the Lord declares "move on", they move on. Mormons keep up with the times, always have. These Texas folks are stuck in a time warp.

good day
ajarizona

Even polygamy among consenting adults can *never* be considered a marriage where both partners have equal rights. The woman has to wait her turn with the husband, while the husband has sexual variety. How is that for equality and real companionship which is possible only between two persons.

Women who choose to be part of a polygamous relationship do it either because they are forced into it, brainwashed into it by members of the group or quite simply for materialistic reasons, they are looked after by a man who is wealthy and powerful (in much the same way young beauties marry old rich powerful men for their money and fame, or rather marry wealth and fame and accept the man that comes with the package).

The FLDS think they are the true followers of Joseph Smith, the LDS think they are.

Why does the LDS church believe they have the authority to decide who gets to be called Mormon?

Seems to me, the FLDS church live more in tune with the teachings of Joseph Smith than the modern LDS church.

I would like to know more about the general authority Steven Snow who helped the FLDS.

Candice,

"De facto" polygamy is mostly consensual. "Polygamy" sanctioned by law has an element of inequality to it. Why not offer polyandry as well? But then, power is always inequally distributed between men and women and those with greater power have their way. Monogamy just makes things a little more just for women.

ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL IS A FALLACY

ALL THINGS ARE THE SAME IS ALSO A FALLACY

SIGNED: RECKIPS

Kiran - I like your thinking. But has polyandry ever really existed outside of Tibet? Practically speaking, it takes a shortage of women in order to make sense from a reproductive point of view.

You're quite right on the power angle though. Monogamy makes things relatively more fair, but unfortunately male hormones defy reason much of the time. We'll never see polygamy in the USA and of that I'm reasonably certain. Infidelity will continue apace.

Curiously, we often find this polygamy business in the context of a religious or quasi-religious environment, however cult-like it may be - many women to one man is the hallmark of a peculiar sort of mythological thinking.

In our modern world, it's cultish manifestations are often based in a relatively anti-social context - thinking now of Jim Jones and David Koresh as examples. Curiously, the leader of the suicidal Kehotek comet tribe of some 10 years back had been voluntarily castrated to ward off sexual temptation - demonstrating the real insanity of this thinking, but then insanity is perfectly logical to the insane!

As a religious collolary, we must travel back to Origon, one of the (voluntarily castrated) great and early founders of Christianity. Losing one's manhood as a method of finding God thus becomes a physical realilty for this early Christian mystic and philosophical founder.

Much later, we find the tradition of the Castrada - where religious singers in Italy had themselves castrated in order to preserve the voice of a pre-pubescent youth! Very popular back in the day......

Since our society requires parental legitimacy for all kinds of reasons, I wonder how they're going to work out the societal/parental identity status of these children. In short order this will become both a legal and judicial issue. issue....stay tuned.

Male hormones as excuse for polygamy is the greatest lie that has been successfully pedaled by a patriarchal society. Women are biologically more capable of having multiple sex-sans-emotions partners. Prostitution is the oldest "profession" of the woman, remember? The biological advantage men have is because they do not get pregnant. Added to that is the fact men earned the bread in traditional societies. These two factors defined gender roles in society, not the biological in/ability to have more than one sexual partner.

=

QUESTION: WHAT IS "THE POLYGAMY SLIPPERY-SLOPE ARGUMENT?"

QUOTE:
. . .Glen Lavy says that the California Supreme Court’s legal reasoning could be applied to polygamous marriages. EXTEND REASONING TO [(FLDS) CUSTODY]. [A Week earlier, I used the same reasoning AGAINST the Texas CPS arguments: the polygamist children’s slippery slope argument.] QUOTE LOS ANGELES TIMES with my comment added.

Available at:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-lavy-davidson21-2008may21,0,4548609.story

SIGNED: RECKIPS

==

Why is polygamy illegal? Why is polygamy immoral? Does it have to do with Christianity?

My question is sincere, not some sort of set up. I'm just wondering.

=

RUSH [POLYGAMY?] LIMBAUGH (NATIONAL RADIO TALK SHOW)

HEADLINE: A CALLER ON POLYGAMY

POLYGAMY: THE RIGHT WAY AND THE WRONG WAY


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060608/content/01125117.guest.html


SIGNED: RECKIPS

==

=

CBS COVERAGE OF FEAR MONGERS SAYING THAT POLYGAMY IS THE NEXT THING, (AS A FALLACY).

Available at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/politics/animal/main4152906.shtml

SIGNED: RECKIPS

=

Electic Elder, your questions have been answered already. There is no equal relationship in polygamy. Period.

Polygamy is nothing more than a male ego taking advantage of female vulnerability and biological disadvantage of being the one who bears children. Polygamy is about males indulging their greed and lust because they can get away with it.

If you claim to be a writer for the Post, you really should know the difference between "overboard" and "aboveboard".

If you claim to be a writer for the Post, you really should know the difference between "overboard" and "aboveboard".

Said Susie June 10, 2008 8:48 PM

"I doubt that people would care that much about polygamy among consenting adults like the HBO series "Big Love." It's made quite clear that the family depicted there is not part of the Mormon Church, and people can enjoy watching it without feeling dirty, because all of the wives are adults."

There are some of us who think the wives were pathetic creatures and the man was a self centered hedonist. He didn't seem to be doing much besides rushing to work and rushing to get his sex routines right.

Kiran - I like your thinking. But has polyandry ever really existed outside of Tibet? Practically speaking, it takes a shortage of women in order to make sense from a reproductive point of view.

Actually, it was also practiced in Africa.

Separate subject, using the matrilineal line to establish one's bona fide claim to a throne was long-standing, and continues to this day in Judaism.

I am genuinely curious how this sect - and Mormons before they decided to banish the practice of polygamy - justified it as "godly" in any way. Like what kind of arguments they used. It is hard to see it as anything but selfishness, and a very bad social system to boot - and not just for the women but also for the young boys who are cast out at early ages to keep the sex ratio unequal. How could a stable society exist that way, unless a large fraction of the males are killed off in wars or gotten rid of in some other way? I just don't get it. And wonder how Smith originally explained it away.

I must wonder if the statistical frequency of teen pregnancy and pedophelia is higher or lower than found in the overall USA population. Last I heard they had evidence of one solid case from maybe 1000 people. Seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me. The real reason of the intervention is to tell the FLDS and the world that separatists are not welcome here. I found the news videos of children being shuttled on Baptist church buses particularly enlightening.

==

TOPIC: POLYGAMY

SUBTOPIC: Proof that "Utopian Gender Equalilty or

ALPHA-FEMALE Equal Relationship" is a FALLACY whether under in monogamy or polygamy.

"Dominant ALPHA-FEMALE" hates any alpha-male manifestations.

"Dominant ALPHA-FEMALE" hates gender equality whether in monogamy or in polygamy.

SIGNED: RECKIPS

=

Slippery Slope, in a human society which is so used to male dominance and female submission it is not suprising that a female who demands equality is perceived as an alpha-female which is the macho term for a masculine-female. The idea of equal and complementary partnerships seems so foreign to a macho-male.

Homer, the statistical frequency of sexual abuse in FLDS does not matter. What matters is that the religious beliefs permit marriage of older men with minors and with many women, a relationship that does not signify equality for the minors and women.

In the rest of the world sexual relationship of older men with minors is counted as a crime and punished accordingly.

Slippery Slope, if a dominant alpha-female is bad, a macho dominant alpha-male is no improvement. They have been around for centuries and women have suffered as a result. Time to change the situation to an equal relationship.

In times when it when *all* married at a young age, marriage was between equals. One young man was married to *one* young woman not much younger than him. No young woman was forced to marry men old enough to be her father or grandfather.

Just to make clear. The polygamist sect has no affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as the "Mormon" church). The church has not recognized the practice of polygamy for over 100 years.

These people in Texas are not "fundamentalist" Mormons in the sense that we refer to fundamentalist "Islamists" being a part of Islam. These sects in Texas and in Southern Utah and Northern Arizona are not even recognized by our church. In fact, those caught practicing or teaching polygmay in our church are subject to church disciplinary councils with the likely result of excommunication.

Claire,

I'm sorry I've had to become one of your "haters." I didn't want to.

But I've had to face up to the facts.

People have explained to you again and again that the polygamists aren't Mormon. Not only that, those people, who include respected religious sociologists, have explained in painstaking detail *why*.

Yet you refuse to listen to people who know far more about the various Latter-day Saint movements and their histories than you do. Instead you continue (stupidly, I have to say) to prolong a blunder equivalent to calling Shiites Sunnis or Lutherans Catholics.

You've had every opportunity to learn, so we, the discerning public, are left to draw the only conclusions we can: you're irresponsible and wreckless. You're biased and closed-minded. You have no place in the world of journalism, particularly writing on a topic -- religion -- for which you appear to have little sensibility.

My sincere hope is that people will associate you with a movement that runs counter to what you believe in. Although, actually, you're one of those Jim Jones new-age types anyway, aren't you?