Polygamy is Illegal
From an early age, your parents and religious leaders teach you that God has ordained you to become a plural wife. They teach you that, as a female, the measure of your worth is in the number of children you bear for your husband and in your husband’s status in the community.
When you are twelve years old, your father arranges for you to marry a distant relative. Your future husband is already married to two women and is fifteen years older then you are. Last year, your eighteen year old sister became the third wife of a man twenty years older than she. Your sister is now expecting her first child with this man.
You are completely isolated from the outside world and are taught that people who are not members of your community are irredeemably evil and must be avoided. You have been given no formal (or informal) education. You are shielded from any person or idea that may challenge plural marriage or your subservient status as a woman as dictated by the traditions and beliefs of your religious community.
Every single state has enacted laws against polygamy, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state and federal prohibitions on polygamy.
Female genital mutilation (also known as female genital cutting/circumcision) is a religious tradition and cultural practice that varies in pain inflicted upon the young girl (some girls receive anesthetic) and physical deformity (some circumcisions are a complete removal of all outer genitalia, other circumcisions are less invasive). Some girls die after the procedure due to loss of blood or infection.
Many countries have enacted laws against FGM, yet the practice continues.
There is absolutely no evidence that the Texas polygamists engage in FGM. Rather, the state of Texas has released limited details of the allegations of physical and sexual abuse against the polygamists, but no hard evidence of such abuse. What if the Texas polygamists, however, were accused of physically mutilating their daughters in the name of their religion? I doubt many people would object to Texas removing the children if that were the case.
Is the state ever justified in removing a child from her home to protect her from religious teachings that encourage her to participate in an illegal activity? Polygamy is illegal in Texas. More importantly, it’s unlikely that a child who is singularly taught that God requires her to participate in plural marriage can independently choose to marry a polygamist as soon as she turns 18.
What are the limits of our tolerance for religious adherents who participate in criminal activities (in this case, polygamy) around their children?? What are the limits of our tolerance for religious adherents who advocate these criminal activities to their children? Would your answer change if these parents were teaching their children that they should become suicide bombers?
I don’t have any problem with children being removed from that sort of environment. It disturbs me that there are people within the LDS church that seem to sympathize with the FLDS community. Of course, those are probably the same people who are totally counting on polygamy in the afterlife…
Comment by SAP — April 17, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
ECS,
Nice post–some good thought provoking questions.
Don’ t know if you mean this merely to be part of your hypothetical or are actually suggesting this goes on in the FLDS community. I think the evidence is to the contrary, as there is concrete evidence of educational activities at the ranch.
This is interesting. Of course, the issues here are are not polygamy—yet. But, possibly they could evolve into polygamy prosecutions if Texas fails in its bid to keep all 400 plus children.
I don’t think many would object to the removal of specific children where specific allegations and evidence exists of sexual abuse. I would object to the removal of all the children from the FLDS ranch if all Texas had was what they currently have made publicly available. My whole point is they need to tailor their investigation and removal to specific children, based on specific evidence or allegations. The Texas Family Law statutes are quite specific about this.
Utah’s and Arizona’s attorneys general have (and I think wisely) great tolerance at least as to the practice of polygamy. They don’t prosecute just for polygamy violations.
I guess it depends on the statutes and how they are written. Is it illegal to advocate underage marriage? Or, is it illegal only to actually engage in the practice? I think we have to limit our criminal laws to actual behavior.
Again, I think we have to look at the specific statutes. Clearly every state has statutes prohibiting underage marriage. Any activity by adults and minors that results in that type of marriage should be prosecuted. Are there constitutional issues about merely advocating, but not actually engaging in underage marriage–I don’t know.
I know, ECS, you are well aware of the case of Stan Shepp and the PA Supreme Court ruling saying that a parent can teach a minor son or daughter about polygamy.
You might also be interested in Jonathan Turley’s article on Polygamy.
As always, you give me food for thought. Thanks.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 17, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Guy - thanks for your comment!
First, Shepp is inapposite to the Texas case. This is what the PA Supreme Court said:
According to the holding of Shepp, the parents may be prosecuted for advocating criminal behavior if it results in physical or mental abuse of a child. Arranged marriages between young girls and much older men as is common in the FLDS community certainly counts as abuse. (As you know, Shepp is also inapposite here because Texas doesn’t have to listen to Pennsylvania)
Second, and this is my main point, polygamy is illegal. While I’m sympathetic to those objecting to the overreaching by the state of Texas, I think we’re losing sight of the fact that many FLDS members are openly practicing polygamy in clear violation of the law. Regardless of any physical or sexual abuse, Texas has the right (obligation) to prosecute those who violate its laws against polygamy. So, either way, the FLDS children may wind up in state custody because of their parents’ illegal activities.
Comment by ECS — April 17, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
I don’t think I see the parallel here. It’s one thing to encourage them into an illegal activity like plural marriage. But FMG is practiced ON them. Girls could leave or be taken away from the polygamous community and with therapy and love, negotiate themselves into new selves. No girl in or out of that community can regrow what was taken from them in FMG.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — April 17, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
PDOE - “encourage them into an illegal marriage” could easily turn into rape.
Comment by ECS — April 17, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
It is possible not to sympathize with the FLDS and still suspect that Texas is not handling this the right way.
I feel for those kids. They must be very upset. Yes, they are victims of forced lack of agency (hello, Lucifer– does this sound familiar?), but think of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave: being dragged out of the dark into the reality of the sunlight is a horribly painful experience. And these are kids.
And I still want to know why none of the compound men are being held for questioning and/or DNA sampling. Surely if the state of Texas can conjure up a warrant to forcibly evacuate a whole compound based on one call, then they can think of a legal loophole to detain/question the real culprits here.
Yes, polygamy makes me sick. I get very tired of the argument that it’s “natural” for men to want multiple sex partners. (oh yeah? Apply Mosiah 3:19 to that, folks.) I cannot make myself believe that this was every ordained by heavenly parents. How can perfect parents want to degrade half of their offspring? Ugh.
But I don’t think the state of Texas is going about this is a way that will make these kids understand that they are being offered freedom and a better choice.
I’m not sure, but perhaps if the compound children were instead required to go to public schools with state-sponsored curriculum and association with many other types of kids, the FLDS children would come to realize there are other ways of life. True, this would not help the currently pregnant 15-year-olds. But freedom that is forced on someone is usually resented, and education is a HUGE factor in improving standard of living (especially for women).
Comment by apaperbackwriter — April 17, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
It disturbs me that there are people within the LDS church that seem to sympathize with the FLDS community. Of course, those are probably the same people who are totally counting on polygamy in the afterlife…
SAP, I sympathize with the innocent men, women, and children who affiliate with the FLDS church whose constitutional rights have been ignored and violated the last two weeks. However, I am not “totally counting on polygamy in the afterlife.” I am simply “totally counting on” constitutional rights being protected in this life. That’s all.
ECS, thank you for the thought-provoking post. I agree with Guy’s response to some of the specifics of the post, but appreciate and respect your thoughts on the issue, especially the insightful and provocative questions posed in your concluding paragraph.
Comment by Christopher — April 17, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
I’m not going to advocate for polyandry in any form. However, I don’t think the FLDS practice of polygamy is, strictly speaking, illegal, because they are only legally married to one person - so in effect they are married with one or more mistresses on the side. My understanding is that most states no longer have laws against adultery. So is this practice necessarily illegal, so long as it is limited only to consenting adults?
Comment by Quimby — April 17, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
I don’t condone what’s been happening at YFZ, but one thing to keep in the back your mind when making a legal argument like this is that though the FLDS consider themselves married as husband and wife and wife and wife, the marriages are church-only. There are times where one of the sister-wives may also be legally wed, but none of the other sister-wives are. It’s not as though the Washington County Courthouse in St. George has been issuing multiple marriage licenses.
In the eyes of the law, this is a man with perhaps one legal wife and multiple mistresses. Polygamy is illegal but prosecution for polygamy is going to require proof that these men have more than one legal spouse. That proof doesn’t exist.
Underage sexual relations? Prosecute. Child abuse? Prosecute. Polygamy? The legal proof isn’t there.
Comment by Chad too — April 17, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
Thought provoking questions, ECS! Thanks.
The polygamy/fgm comparison doesn’t work for me inasmuch as there seems to be more dissimilarities than similarities. Nonetheless, the hyperbole actually does make me rethink the extent to which I can sympathize with a group of people raising kids to flout the law (err, unless we’re talking about speed limits, flout flout).
I think it was Thoreau who said “no law ever made a man a whit more just.” I suppose the FLDs version would simply say that man’s laws are trumped by God’s–but whenever I read *Antigone*, which pits secular against divine law, I’m struck by the inflexibility and arrogance of both sides. Part of my struggle with this who kerfuffle is similar–both sides seem overtly interested in spin, self-righteousness, and to a degree, obfuscation.
Um, I’m clearly tired and not making much sense. More later. I like your questions. Excellent food for thought!
Comment by Janet — April 17, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
ECS,
Yes, and the FLDS practice of polygamy at this particular ranch, may or may not fit this description. Certainly if you are going to prosecute criminally, or remove children involuntarily the state will need credible evidence satisfying their particular statutes or penal code sections. We can’t go by what our own, mine included, pre-conceived notions of the FLDS lifestyle.
Maybe–maybe not. Are you talking about underage girls as opposed to just “young” girls? And, which age are you going to use? When the FLDS came to town, Texas in its infinite wisdom thought it was clearly OK for 14 year old girls to marry older men. How common is common? Is every 14 year old FLDS girl being married off to older men? I don’t know there is any evidence to suggest that–credible evidence that is. I don’t count Carolyn Jessop giving interviews every night on Larry King as credible evidence.
No, but they probably should, just as they should listen and learn from Utah and Arizona’s experiences.
I’m not certain that is the case–I think as is a common practice in these communities, they have one legal wife and the rest are simply co-habitation. You know, Texas gave us Lawrence, and if the co-habitation is between consenting adults–then there are going to be some very serious Constitutional consequences here.
What about Utah and Arizona. Do they have the obligation to criminally prosecute those who violate the bigamy statutes?
And, in your heart of hearts–is that what you truly feel is in the best interests of all 400 plus children here? Yank them away forever from the only home life they have known and dump them into the Texas foster care system? Who is best served with that result?
Comment by Guy Murray — April 17, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
Yurgh. I just realized my #10 could feasibly be read as though I believe polygamy is God’s law. I don’t. Nope. Not at all. I do think it’s morality is culturally bound, an assertion I’m unwilling to make regarding FGM (the acceptability rather than the morality of which = cultural imho).
Comment by Janet — April 17, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
#6 I’m not sure, but perhaps if the compound children were instead required to go to public schools with state-sponsored curriculum and association with many other types of kids, the FLDS children would come to realize there are other ways of life.
That’s a dangerous path to tread. It’s only a small step from there to requiring Mormon, Buddhist, Wiccan, Insert Distrusted Group Here, kids to go to “state-sponsored curriculum.” That’s an awful lot of trust you have that said curriculum will be fair and true. Myself, I have no such trust.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — April 17, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
And yet you bring it up because…? It seems out of left field and only brought up to be incendiary.
I’m sorry if I failed to see the connection, but you bring it up and then dismiss it for seemingly no reason at all.
Comment by Tim J. — April 17, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
Also, there is no evidence that Barack Obama engages in FGM.
Comment by Kaimi — April 17, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
“Is the state ever justified in removing a child from her home to protect her from religious teachings that encourage her to participate in an illegal activity?
From a U.S. legal perspective this looks like a freedom of speech rather than freedom of religion issue–what are the limits of advocacy of illegal action. As far as that goes, advocacy of imminent lawless action is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce imminent or lawless action. I suspect the added freedom of religion wrinkle would not affect the outcome. Teaching kids they are destined to be polygamists or suicide bombers may be repulsive, but it is not illegal.
As for a child’s ability to choose, the child-raising norms of U.S. society–never mind polygamous sects in the Texas desert–leave a great many, if not most, children unable to independently or intelligently choose many things when they turn 18, a fact we acknowledge in our liquor laws but not in our marriage laws. This peculiar result is based more on our nation’s history than the relative threat of harm.
It’s not pleasant watching people screw up their lives and even less pleasant watching them screw up the lives of people around them, but the alternative may be worse still.
Comment by Mathew — April 17, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
One point to consider about not *technically* breaking bigamy laws is the idea of common law marriage. I have no idea how Texas handles the issue, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to say that if a man has been living like he’s married to two women for enough time then he could be prosecuted for bigamy, even if there is no marriage license.
Comment by Starfoxy — April 17, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Texas Common Law Marriage FAQ
Comment by Guy Murray — April 17, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
Polygamy is illegal. It disgusts me. However, I find myself empathsizing with the FLDS a lot more than I think I should. I think the reason is two-fold.
First of all, I think what they are doing to the children is wrong. I don’t truly believe that Texas CPS/government is capable of understanding the emotional abuse that they are inflicting on the children. I would guess that the mental and emotional turmoil those children are going through will leave scars that in many instances will be worse than the lifestyle that the polygamists lead. Texas thinks that they are saving the children, and maybe they will save some, but IMO the foster care system is not a place that will allow these children to recover from the FLDS culture or the trauma CPS has inflicted on the children over the last 2 weeks. Giving the children access to the the therapy and care they need to recover from the FLDS lifestyle is very costly. For now, I think everyone will step up and donate money, time, etc., but what happens 5 years from now when this story is no longer on the front page? 5 years from now there won’t be the funding to support the necessary therapy for these children. What then?
Secondly, as much as watchings the polygamist women on the TV say that their Constitutional, God-given rights are being violated bugs me and makes me want to tell them to get overthemselves, the truth is that they are right. Texas went too far, and I think in the end because of their overreaching, the children will ultimately be returned to the FLDS. The FLDS will then go more underground, and their abusive/controlling practices will only escalate.
Comment by Angie — April 17, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
In Chicago, there are large black churches that preach and teach hate. Much of their congregations have been on welfare for 3 and even 4 generations. They don’t work. Instead they teach their children that they are victims, that other people need to provide for them and that white people just may be the off-spring of the devil.
Question 1. What do you think would be the response if the state of IL raided one of these large churches and took *their* children?
Question 2. With Texas as the example - Do you think that the state of IL *should* raid these churches, remove their children, and teach them to be a productive part of society?
Comment by Chicago — April 17, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
I had to write because I have a lot of trouble with the church’s historical practice of polygamy. I have been a member for just over 5 years and while I love this church, it is hard for me to believe that polygamy was ever a commandment from God. At first, I thought perhaps the commandment was wrong and God worked through the US gov’t to stop the practice. Then, when I found out that the church does not accept that idea, I thought I could just “elide” over the past; afterall, what matters is my testimony of the church today. However, every time I think of polygamy I want to physically puke; I believe it places women in an inherently un-equal position with men. I try to not let this side-issue destroy my testimony of the gospel (believe me, I am trying really hard right now) but every once-in-a-while, my feelings of anger and sickness over polygamy return. Now, with the FLDS in the news every day, it is getting worse. When I think of the possibility of polygamy in heaven, that only makes me feel even more angry and depressed. I can’t talk with my husband about this b/c his testimony is on shakier ground than mine right now and I need to be strong for him. And, I’m not ready to go to the Bishop. Any help would be much appreciated.
Comment by Katie — April 17, 2008 @ 10:25 pm
This is similar to a post I did over on Mormon Matters today (The End of Polygamy - Again?). The actions of TX clearly indicate that they are going after polygamy and the FLDS directly as a cult, not merely investigating a complaint of abuse.
Are the children ultimately better off not being raised FLDS? Yes. I feel for all the women & children who have suffered emotional or physical abuse. My heart goes out to the mothers who have been torn from their children.
But polygamy is illegal. A religion that encourages illegal, secretive behavior is a cult. And the women who seem to not understand why they are being persecuted have failed to understand that they are complicit. That is the real parallel to FGM here - that women who raise their children in a cult (or culture) with harmful beliefs and practices are the very enablers of that cult (or culture) while also being its victims. As Alice Walker said: ” One tree said to another, I have seen the axe, and the handle is one of us.”
Comment by hawkgrrrl — April 17, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
Katie, in the end, the only comfort I can find is this: Heavenly Father loves me and would not ask me to do anything that would hurt me. Being in a polygamous marriage in any life would hurt me.
Now, on to the disclaimer: Family relationships are difficult. I have a great-grandmother who was married to her husband and had four children with him; that marriage ended and years later she married another man. My husband has a great-grandmother who had four husbands, not all at once, of course. She only had children with her first husband, who she would only see one month out of every year (he worked away from home). Inevitably when he left she would be pregnant with another child. After more than a decade of that she told him not to bother coming back, and eventually outlived her other three husbands. I really don’t know who these women would want to be sealed to for eternity, if they could only choose one man. Maybe they won’t have to make that decision.
Comment by Quimby — April 17, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
Guy that link was great. Thanks for doing my homework for me.
This part I think is pertinent
I would think that most if not all under the table polygamous marriages would meet all of these requirements.
Kaite- I have also felt the literal, physical illness over polygamy. There is an article that I was directed to awhile back that actually made me feel much much better, I credit the peace I’ve found with the subject to that article.
Comment by Starfoxy — April 17, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Oh, and this article too.
Comment by Starfoxy — April 17, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Katie,
You can be in the church and still believe polygamy was totally wrong. I know it’s not the official line but there is a wide scope of belief among active mormons on all sorts of issues, and if it makes you feel worse to deal with polygamy as if it was ever a right choice, then don’t. nobody will make you. Just keep up with the important parts of the gospel. Christ. your covenants. service. prayer. there’s nothing in the scriptures or the temple interview that says you have to support all past teachings by all past prophets no matter what your heart and the spirit are telling you.
Unfortunately I won’t be here for follow-up discussion. I just wanted to point out that prophets do make mistakes. sometimes. so you could ponder the possibility that this could be one of those times.
Comment by cchrissyy — April 17, 2008 @ 11:58 pm
#22 said
“And the women who seem to not understand why they are being persecuted have failed to understand that they are complicit.”
So if I am physically abused for a second or third time, and don’t leave when I could have, I am complicit because I actually believe I don’t have other options.
I find it interesting that people are not looking at these women as victims. Instead, they deserve to have their children taken away. It seems ironic that a feminist website would not look at the men as the perpetrators of this - in this case, I think they are. Why not suggest the children and mothers recieve counseling and support together.
Forced marriage is wrong, underage sex is wrong, and polygamy is illegal. However, we live in a society that emulates Hugh Hefner and his live in girlfriends on TV, a society that legislates that parents cannot be informed if their 13 year old is on birth control or had an abortion, a culture that promotes sexuality at all ages - look at Jamie Lynne Spears -, and all kinds of other screwed up moral values. So when a group that may codify our societal immorality (multiple partners, underage sex) into their religion we get all uptight, but when those who are involved in the same actions but are not religious we are fine with it. In fact, we put their lives on reality shows and call it entertainment - (Rock of Love anyone).
I would love to see Texas or any other state justify permanently taking a child away from an alcoholic family, a mother with children from multiple fathers, a girl who got pregnant in her early teens, or a couple that had an “open marriage”. All of those indoctrinate their children into a potentially dangerous life of poverty and struggle.
I’m no fan of polygamy, but our national fascination with the FLDS seems more like somebody saying “see, we may be living immoral lives, but we at least aren’t like them,” instead of looking at a way to make our own lives more Godlike.
Comment by Gilgamesh — April 18, 2008 @ 12:25 am
I think the situation is fascinating to many people, not only because of the scandal factor, but because what is decided here may have an effect on gay marriage as well. You can’t morally dictate against polygamous marriages between consenting adults unless you are going to serve the same to homosexual marriages. One of the most interesting things, I find, is that some of those who fight most vehemently for homosexual marriage legalization are the most strongly against allowing polygamous marriage of any kind.
Obviously, children should not be abused. That’s a separate subject. But there is no legal reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to marry. In some ways, legalizing polygamy might be beneficial. It might ease up on our welfare system.
Also, many people don’t realize that a child 14 years of age or older can marry perfectly legally in the state of Texas so long as they have parental consent. Therefore, “underage” marriages are legal in Texas, and they are within their legal rights. Even if Texas were to change the law now (and I’m not a lawyer, so anyone who is please correct me) I think the situation would be sticky to retroactively annul the marriages.
At any rate, Texas’ actions may affect the law’s approach to marriage and its affect on our personal lives far more deeply than seems immediately obvious. For example, will the Lord command us LDS members to practice polygamy again if it becomes legal?
Comment by SilverRain — April 18, 2008 @ 4:58 am
I’m with Tim J. in #14–where’d this come from?
But it did get me thinking–there is also no evidence that the Texas polygamists have an undeclared uranium enrichment program.
Comment by Peter LLC — April 18, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Thanks for all the great comments! I have only a second to respond right now, but I did want to clarify one point that Quimby and others made.
I’ve quoted the Texas bigamy statute below to show that (1) polygamy is illegal in Texas and (2) members of the FLDS community are in violation of this statute if they are legally married to at least one of their spouses. Because of the “purporting to marry” language in the bigamy statute, common law marriage or even “spiritual marriage” does not sanction plural marriages. If you are legally married to at least one of your spouses, then you are violating the law if you live with other women under the appearance of being married.
Comment by ECS — April 18, 2008 @ 6:05 am
Janet - this was the purpose of the comparison. It may be easier to sympathize with the polygamists over the practitioners of FGM because the polygamists don’t seem to be physically harming their children. I think there are important parallels between the religious practice of FGM and plural marriage, however. In both practices, young girls are taught to act against their best interests to serve religious and cultural mores.*
*Assuming that engaging in plural marriage and FGM are not in a young girl’s best interests.
Comment by ECS — April 18, 2008 @ 7:35 am
Mat - I agree with this.
I’m not sure if you followed the Shepp case, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized that parents may be prosecuted for advocating illegal conduct if it were reasonably likely that the child would suffer mental or physical harm. Whether you agree with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, it seems that there are some limits on parents’ free speech rights if the speech directly harms their children (regardless of whether the speech incites illegal activity). For example, parents who tell their children repeatedly that they are worthless, no good and stupid could well be prosecuted for emotional abuse.
Likewise, some would argue that the FLDS community has inflicted mental harm on young girls by teaching them that God wants them to engage in plural marriage and remain secluded from the outside world.
Comment by ECS — April 18, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Perhaps. Any categorization of “immoral” requires arbitrary line drawing. In this case, however, the state of Texas has drawn the line by making the practice of polygamy illegal. Teenage pregancy (excluding statutory rape), promiscuity, racism, and wasting your life watching soap operas while collecting government assistance (excluding welfare fraud) may well be immoral, but they aren’t illegal.
Comment by ECS — April 18, 2008 @ 7:57 am
I found this article on the topic interesting:
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/04/your-children-are-ours.html
Comment by prairie chuck — April 18, 2008 @ 8:38 am
ECS, for me the answers to your questions are fairly simple. We should not tolerate these criminal activities or child abuse or anything like unto it regardless of the doctrine and precedent set by the religion’s founder(s). I do empathize with the backward FLDS folks in that they are trying to live a commandment required for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, according to the early Prophets. In how to accomplish the illegal polygamous goals, Joseph Smith set the precedent when he illegally took other women as his wives including teenagers. In a way the FLDS are reaping the fruits of a disgusting practice packaged as doctrine by the alpha-males of early Mormonism. Our own church is partially complicit as it has never disowned the doctrine contained in D&C 132. Indeed two living apostles have celestial second-wife marriages. Hopefully this will open the church up in dealing with the issue honestly (I doubt it will). I look forward to the new season of Big Love.
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 10:37 am
I think it is disingenuous and perhaps even vicious to equate remarrying after your spouse has died with the practices of the FLDS.
Comment by Researcher — April 18, 2008 @ 11:09 am
It’s vicious that the FLDS and some LDS believe in the doctrine of polygamy? Why? Both practices originate from the same doctrine found in D&C 132 – that is they will have multiple wives in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Let me ask you this: Are there currently two living LDS apostles who’ve remarried in the temple in celestial marriages? If god exists and there is a celestial kingdom, will they (Elders Nelson and Oaks) be polygamists there (assuming they qualify through obedience)?
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 11:30 am
To #21, and maybe others.
When I think of polygamy in the church I do not think of the polygamy that is being practiced today by the FLDS. There were no child brides or the abuse in upbringing those in the FLDS that we see now. They believe they MUST have multiple wives to get to the Celestial Kingdom. The way it was practiced then was that they COULD have multiple wives. The majority in the church did not have multiple wives, but those that did seem to be focused on.
I feel for the women in the FLDS as they are victims, however, I feel that at some point, as adults, they turned off that ilttle voice in their head that said “Something’s just not right about all this.”
I’m not sure I believe all the men are perverts or molesters as the FLDS is over 70 years old now, many of those same men were raised as well to believe that the role they are playing now is God-directed.
What a very confusing mess.
I’m currently a foster parent and have been discussing with other foster parents the hardships that would be undertaken with taking in some of these children. It would be very difficult. I believe some of them should go back to their mothers, provided there is some oversight into what is going on with them, and especially when it comes to protecting the girls and boys in the 10-15 year old range who are at risk of being married off or expelled from the community.
However, i think the teenage girls who are already married, pregnant or have children should be placed in foster homes that have some experience dealing with teenage mothers. Because those girls have already been at least spiritually married, they are not going to be cared for by their actual mothers, but instead turned over to their husbands. That, I think should not happen.
Comment by Heidi — April 18, 2008 @ 11:43 am
This is a news report I just came across:
Is arrest tied to FLDS raid, phone calls?
http://deseretnews.com/article/content/mobile/0,5223,695271689,00.html
I think this adds credence to the belief that the call was, in fact, a hoax.
I second what Heidi wrote: “What a very confusing mess.”
Comment by Kalola — April 18, 2008 @ 11:59 am
I sympathize with them as human beings - it has nothing to do with polygamy. There is not an easy “out” of the FLDS community. My heart aches for the women who’ve had their children taken from them. My heart aches for those kids - the little ones especially - who cannot possibly understand what is going on.
Doesn’t mean I agree with the FLDS or think polygamy is grand.
In the AZ/UT border community, there was a public school with a state-sponsored curriculum - and a handful of “outside” kids - though the communities are so geographically isolated, not many “outsiders” live there. The FLDS community, when Jeffs became the leader, began to have issues with the district and the school. They wanted the district to hire teachers only within the FLDS community. The district refused. So the community pulled all of their kids. The district had no choice but to shut the school down and bus any kids not pulled out to the school I attended.
I think there are a lot of thought-provoking questions in this post, though I fail to see the connection between FGM and FLDS.
I, for one, think that the state has to have more than just an “informant they can’t find” than to pull hundreds of children from their homes - and, apparently, ignore the men, who in my experience are the ones who need to be investigated. To me, it gets too close to “they’re not like us” hysteria. Yes, there is abuse. Yes, I don’t think the FLDS compound is healthy - but it’s a little to close to home for me (Missouri mobs, etc.) to feel completely okay with it.
I want them to do their work. Find out the abuse. But a state-sponsored system is not going to do those sheltered, confused kids any good.
Tough situation all around - no perfect solution.
Comment by Sara — April 18, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
Heidi, I once believed as you, in your first paragraph. However, I’ve become more educated on the teachings of the LDS church and had to confront the weak apologetics that I had been taught in my youth. I recommend you delve in to the history of the church. There are many excellent books now available, even written by active members (often reviewed on this website), that will help you understand the polygamous doctrine of the LDS church. BTW, Joseph Smith married at least one 14 year-old girl. Read Lisa’s review of Compton’s book here:
http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/?p=853
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Polygamy may be illegal, but is it immoral? That, to me, is the bigger question.
Legality is little more than a consensus among fallible human beings as to what should or shouldn’t be punishable behavior.
Were the patriarchs of the Old Testament immoral? From what I have read recently, plural marriage existed at the time of Jesus’ earthly mission. I don’t see one condemnation of plural marriage in the New Testament, and early LDS general authorities taught that Jesus was possibly married to more than one woman (unless I am mistaken, and I don’t think that I am).
21st century views on the proper relationship between men and women may have nothing at all in common with eternal, celestial principles.
Comment by Mark N. — April 18, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
If you had mutilated your daughter, would I have any problem with arresting you or taking away your children? No…
But HAVE you mutilated your daughter? Or are you going to lose your child because, as it now turns out, somebody made a prank phone call?
If they took away your kids on fraudulent evidence, I bet you would feel quite differently. Every one of those alleged “teenage brides” has to be brought forward and counted. What if there turn out to be 2 in 300, or 4, or 8? Does this justify taking away all the kids and placing them in (scarce and badly overseen) foster homes? Seems to me just as barbaric as what happened to Aboriginal kids in Australia, a while ago.
Does your view of FLDS members have any personal experience to back it up, or are you only expressing your personal beliefs? Some women (and children) enjoy polygamy, apparently. They have computers and DVD players up there, as the evidence reveals. Maybe someone even downloaded porn images, just like the rest of the world does.
Comment by Carla — April 18, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Equating the Mormon polygamy with the FLDS polygamy is comparing apples and carrots. Sure they’re both foods. But the comparison stops there.
The Mormon practice of polygamy was never a central part of the religion. It was an appendage to the religion, practiced by a fraction, and it sure received a lot of press. But when push came to shove, it could be abandoned. It was not a saving or central principle like faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, spreading the gospel throughout the nations.
On the other hand, the FLDS sect or cult or church or whatever you want to call it has absolutely no reason for existing except for polygamy. That’s why it was founded. That’s the principle upon which it has continued. That may be the hill that it dies on.
And by the way, marrying 14 year olds was not common practice in 19th century Mormon polygamy, whatever JS was reported to have done in one instance. You can find statistics in a number of places.
I will mention, however, my grandpa’s great-grandma who was married at age 16 to a man almost old enough to be her father.
Aha! You say. B.S., I say. She wasn’t being married polygamously. Her parents weren’t polygamous. Neither were the parents of her husband. It was just a 19th century thing.
Comment by Researcher — April 18, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Researcher, I recommend you change your moniker until you do some research and get your facts straight concerning Mormon polygamy. Hopefully a more trusted blogger, like Lisa, will address your misconceptions. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
I’m with Katie (#21) and others in her boat.
This is really hard to watch because so many of the “extreme” things FLDS say are actually core traits of orthodox Mormonism, albeit grossly exaggerated.
Does polygamy and the possibility of a polygamous Heavenly Father and a polygamous celestial kingdom remain a theological underpinning of orthodox Mormonism? yes.
Are women in orthodox Mormon culture encouraged to “keep sweet”? yes.
Does orthodox Mormon culture value obedience to the prophet over all other considerations? yes.
Shudder. Sad.
Comment by JB — April 18, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
So anyone separated but not divorced who moves in with a girlfriend should expect a forthcoming raid from the Texas Rangers. You are aware of how common that is…
Comment by Clark — April 18, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
To add, of course the key phrase is “under the appearance.” It seems to me that the FLDS go to great lengths to not communicate to outsiders their status.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not fan of the FLDS, although it seems that most of the problems have occurred under Jeff’s leadership.
Comment by Clark — April 18, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
All right, Carlton. I’ll think really hard about my nom de plume.
Now, which of the handful of books about polygamy would you like me to read or reread?
Comment by Researcher — April 18, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Sorry to double comment, but here goes…
I like to quote BYU history professor Thomas Alexander who said that there is no greater expert on a subject than the person who has read one book.
Comment by Researcher — April 18, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
“The Mormon practice of polygamy was never a central part of the religion.” This quote alone makes me wonder if you read anything on the subject. At least anything not dumbed-down by correlation. I’ll forego making recommendations. If you have the desire teh Google is just a couple clicks away.
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
I’ll admit that I haven’t done a lot of research on polygamy and the early church, mostly because it hasn’t really been a big deal to me.
I have to agree with Researcher in saying that the early church did not revolve around polygamy, it was instead a part of the church, whereas the FLDS church’s doctrine revolves around that one concept.
For me and my own reconciliation of the church’s past, my own personal testimony and relationship with Christ is not dependent on that doctrine or the fine details of it. The fact that the church was once a proponant of polygamy doesn’t affect my every day decision making process.
When I was younger (a teenager) I used to think about it more, and joke about it with my friends, but I guess it was never something I took seriously.
One thing I wonder is if polygamy hadn’t been a condition of Utah state-hood, would it be a big deal now, a norm or would it have faded away eventually.
Also, I wonder if it was fine and good at the time, but if the continuance of it would have been bad for society as a whole. Would polygamy ended up becoming a mainstream way of life instead of a religious one eventually? With polygamy legal would gay marriage already be a norm in our culture because we had already accepted other alternatives to the one-man, one-woman standard?
Where would the feminist revolution be if by the 70’s it was considered normal for a man to have multiple wives?
I know they are a lot of what if questions that really don’t have answers, but I ponder the societal nature of polygamy rather than the religious context in which it was practiced 100 years ago.
Getting back to the subject though… it is illegal, though tolerated, like many other things in our society. However when it comes down to harming children, restricting people from exercising their agency and limiting a person’s ability to think for themselves, that is where the FLDS went wrong.
Yes in the LDS church we believe in our prophets words, but he doesn’t dictate every one of our personal actions or limit our ability to make our own choices. In addition, the church does not restrict those who choose not to follow the teachings from still being a part of their own family. For example, I have two inactive brothers and could not imagine being part of a church that would not allow me to be a part of their lives. (Sorry that last part was a tangent, but kind of a responce to the last part of JB’s comment.)
Comment by Heidi — April 18, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
While we are at it, why don’t we forcefully remove all children who are being pushed into extravagant beauty pagaents from their homes? Many feel that dressing a 7 year old in bikinis and heavy make-up is an invitation for poedophiles to thrive on images of a precious daughter, and sets them up for a life of shalow values, perpetuating the ‘woman is an object’ idea. Isn’t this a form of abuse? If it were my daughter I would think so. Do parents have the right to put their children through this? Legally, of course they do. Would the state ever remove a child for this reason? I have never heard of it.
To lump every FLDS family together like this is rediculous. I agree with the posts that have said that they should approach this on an individual level - prosecuting where there is actually evidence of abuse. If it had been done this way from th beginning, it may have been a slow start to get people talking, but perhaps if the FLDS community saw that they were being treated as people with rights from a government who only wants to protect them, they would gradually begin to trust such a system and perhaps many would have come forward voluntarily. Good luck with that now. Take something forcefully from a group and they cling to what they know and what felt safe (or safer) - persecution can often act only as enforcement that what you believe is true and the forces of satan are working to destroy you. As Mormons, we should recognize that kind of thinking.
Comment by pom — April 18, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
pom, the FLDS are Mormons, just not our kind of Mormons. From their perspective we’re the ones who’ve abandoned a great deal of Joseph Smith’s revelations (see D&C 132). Why are LDS so adamant that FLDS aren’t Mormons?
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
And to add, why are evangelicals so adamant Mormons aren’t Christians?
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
#13,
I respect your right to disagree with me, and I know that no school curriculum is perfect, BUT, in a public school, kids are usually exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions. They learn there are various ways to see the world and that they must choose for themselves. It is much more difficult for children in very sheltered environments to learn that — that has been my experience as a teacher dealing with 25 or so formerly home-schooled children over a period of 20 years. (The temporarily home-schooled children or partially home-schooled children were much more likely to understand the concepts of agency and tolerance than were the children who had been extremely sheltered until their parents found it necessary to send them to public schools.)
Based upon what I have seen and experienced, I believe that an education that teaches kids variety, agency, and tolerance is better than one that denies all of those, which, from what I have read, seems to be the case in the lives of the FLDS children.
Comment by apaperbackwriter — April 18, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
Carlton (#55): There’s a reasonably written book about the topic. I even own the durned thing but cannot find it anywhere (my bookcases runneth over. And not just with books). The book is co-written by a Mormon and an evangelical; I actually picked it up at an evangelical academic conference where the plenary speaker, a brilliant theologian, used Mormons as the butt of a rather funny joke. Luckily he dodged the meanie during the Q&A who asked how Mormons could be so stupid, or I’d have been seriously irked.
Anyhow, I think a lot of it has to do with differing conceptions of Jesus Christ. We don’t think he is God, but rather the son of God. We don’t pray to Him. We believe Lucifer was his brother (ala annoying political yelling aimed at Mitt Romney). But all of my evangelical friends seem OK with my professions of Christianity once they understand my believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The polytheism, however, is utterly and understandably unnerving to them.
Comment by Janet — April 18, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Carlton,
I went back to read your previous posts and it does look like you have done more research on the subject, so I certainly can’t make any arguments with any kind of historical back up.
“From their perspective we’re the ones who’ve abandoned a great deal of Joseph Smith’s revelations.”
Of course the FLDS sees us that way, how else COULD they see us?
“Why are LDS so adamant that FLDS aren’t Mormons?”
That’s a very good question. Most mormons would answer, of course, by saying that because we believe that our Prophet is called of God, and that we belong to Jesus’ true church, only we have claim to that name? Which is kind of funny since it is not our official name anyway. If one were to define “mormon” as simply one who follows the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and not strictly members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, perhaps it is true that many religions could potentially decide to take that name. I have stayed with polygamous, fundamentalist mormons, and when I asked them what they called themselves, I don’t think they ever listed “mormons” as one of their names, but maybe that was just this one group.
Another reason could be that so many Mormons (I’m talking about non-fundamentalists here:) harbor a lot of confusion and maybe even fear of our polygamous past and want to distance ourselves as much as possible from the practice. I know I was a little offended when I was trying to explain to a friend that Warrn Jeffs was not a leader in my church.
I guess I could ask you a similar question. Why are you so upset that LDS don’t think of FLDS as Mormons?
Comment by pom — April 18, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
pom, (I’m not upset - should I be?) because I find it hypocritical to label another group as not something (Mormon) when we have to deal with it all the time from other religions that claim: MORMONS AREN”T CHRISTIAN!
I just googled “are Mormons Christian?” Here’s the second hit:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml
(I’m embarrassed, now Janet thinks I’m dumb.)
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
I think this is the book Janet is referring to: How Wide the Divide by Stephen E Robinson and Craig L. Bloomberg
I just finished reading Greg Mortensen’s Three Cups of Tea, and I think the answer for the FLDS women and children is (at least in part) the same as it is for the people in Pakistan most likely to be indoctrinated by the Taliban– education, especially of women. Of course, that’s seriously limited at YFZ, and I think that, almost as much as some of the other stuff, is truly criminal.
Comment by Shelah — April 18, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
I apologize profusely to everyone including Carlton if I sounded simple in my statement that polygamy was just one aspect of the church. Often in blogging we do not have the luxury of sitting for hours in committee thinking carefully over every possible way that our statement could be read and tweaking a word here and there. Anyway, that would lead to correlation which is evidently a bad thing.
That said, I stand behind my statement even if it is not perfect. Polygamy was not the primary principle or practice of the early church. It is the one that is most widely known since it is the most sensational. History is much more complex than the past two weeks media coverage would lead you to believe. Reading briefly into a topic can skew your idea of the topic and its importance overall.
You’ll have to take my word that I have credentials in the area of 19th and early 20th century Mormonism and extensive primary and secondary source readings, since I refuse to respond any further to an ad hominem attack.
I will however make a comment in the “discerning truth” thread where Carlton is also commenting.
Comment by Researcher — April 18, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
So you don’t feel all “ad hominem-ed” Researcher, I hereby rescind my statements implying Mormon polygamy was integral in the early church.
Here’s what Joseph said about polygamy when questioned, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
Maybe the RLDS are correct, Joseph was never involved in polygamy.
Comment by Carlton — April 18, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
I guess the 11th Article of Faith doesn’t apply to the FLDS, eh?
Researcher,
These quotes are for you. Are these from true prophets or false prophets?
“Hear it, ye Elders of Israel, and mark it down in your log books, the fulness of the Gospel is the United Order and the order of Plural Marriage, and I fear that when I am gone, this people will give up these two principles which we prize so highly; and if they do, this Church cannot advance as God wishes for it to advance.” –Spoken by Brigham Young at dedication of St. George Temple. (See Celestial Marriage, p. 2, 3rd Ed.)
“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866)
“Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or, as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, “that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed.” When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, (sp) and I do to-day; (sp) I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men–it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated. These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221, John Taylor, April. 7, 1866)
“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part–and is good so far as it goes–and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceive himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith…he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878)
Need more?
“Yet the whole fraternity throughout Christendom will cry out against this order. `Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear,’ they all cry out; `I am in pain…I am suffering at witnessing the wickedness there is in the land. Here is one of the `relics’ of barbarism.’ Yes, one of the relics of Adam, of Enoch, of Noah, of Abraham, of Isaac, of Jacob, of Moses, David, Solomon, the Prophets, and
JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES.” (Brigham Young, Des. News, Feb. 10, 1867)
“And then it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, and visiting one another, and conversing about their numerous children and their
kingdoms. Oh, ye delicate ladies Christendom, how can you endure such a scene as this?” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 172)
Comment by Amanda — April 18, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
Starfoxy, thank you so, so much for the link to that article. I have always struggled with the concept of polygamy and decided that I would go on faith until I had an answer. When I went to the temple with my husband last Saturday, it occurred to me during the session that polygamy is not THE higher law. I started having all sorts of thoughts and searched through D&C 132 in the celestial room. I emailed my SIL with my new understandings, and she disagrees with me. But, this article basically summarizes my thoughts. I am so grateful to have found it. I look at polygamy as an expediency thing, kind of like Nephi and Laban. Murder is wrong, but the Lord commanded Nephi to slay Laban to accomplish His purposes. Polygamy is wrong, except when the Lord commands it for His purposes. I don’t think it is a higher celestial law. My husband found me this quote that supports this as well:
Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained:
“Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi
and his people were denied the power to have more than one
wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the
Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized
by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it
upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1–28.)
Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives
with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be
valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C.
132:7, 29–66.)
Comment by Stephanie — April 18, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
Carlton, I don’t think you’re dumb. My dissertation adviser is a very smart, very cool evangelical. Before i met him i more or less dismissed anyone who informed me that I wasn’t Christian. And I’m about as internet savvy as a turnip, so I’d probably ask before googling as well.
I do agree with Researcher that polygamy wasn’t the defining aspect of 19th c. Mormonism except to the Non-Mormons, for whom it encapsulated everything they wanted to know (mean old Mark Twain, bursting their bubbles by calling the Mormon women ugly instead of providing salacious details. Who would’ve thought?). A relatively small number of saints engaged in “the principle,” but some were admittedly rabid in their defense of it and the defense remains on the historical record as lively polemic. That can skew our perception: small practice, passionately defended. Still, everyone was getting baptized and embracing Jesus and prophetic power. Statistically I think the Law of Consecration involved a greater percentage of saints at a given time than polygamy ever did, although I could be wrong about that.
But while I agree with Researcher, i also (fence-sitter me) agree with Carlton inasmuch as some prophetic sermons DID indeed tout polygamy as essential to salvation (and of course certain individuals were informed it was essential to theirs, specifically). Such a sermon would indicate centrality of doctrine if not practice. Still, the opposition of terms is potentially faulty, yes? We could easily argue that those sermons really never became “doctrine” because plural marriage never became a mandatory ordinance mainstreamed into the general LDS populace–something the FLDS would wag their heads about, no doubt. i figure lots of sermons ran polemical about lots of things, and many of those things are not now considered doctrine. Thank heavens. Blood Atonement, anyone? Shudder. The whole Journal of Discourses is a fun lark if you’re willing to see much of it as theological conjecture rather than doctrine. You assume the latter–and act which would run counter to the church’s current definition of doctrine, btw–and your blood will freeze, boil, or simply get all confused. Fascinating stuff, though!
I am willing to bet some of my ancestors would’ve bailed had they believed polygamy wasn’t necessary for them. Reality can be perspectival, no?
Comment by Janet — April 18, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
Carlton, my personal opinion is that D&C 132 is and has been misinterpreted to mean that polygamy is the higher celestial law. When I read it, it doesn’t say that to me. It says that celestial marriage, more specifically the priesthood power to bind sealings, is the higher law. The article Starfoxy linked to really is good. I would encourage anyone who struggles with the concept of polygamy to read it. Polygamy has been a huge stumbling block for me, but I realize that most of the things I “knew” about polygamy were more the theories of man (this article is also theory, not doctrine).
I think that verses 59-60 in D&C 132 show that the Lord commanded polygamy as a sacrifice, to test Joseph Smith and a few others. And that verses 61-65 outline the laws surrounding polygamy WHEN it is commanded by the Lord, which IMO, is a temporal commandment.
Also, verse 66 says that the Lord will reveal more later. “Let this suffice for the present”. My best guess is that He will reveal later how the sealings of men to multiple women (or even women to multiple men) will be worked out in the eternities. Of course, this is all just my own interpretation of scripture. To each his own.
Comment by Stephanie — April 18, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
Janet,
Can you name the General Authorities in the 19th century that weren’t polygamist? It was a requirement for leadership callings, which is why 20-25 percent of the membership were polygamist.
In 1882, in a revelation given to John Taylor, Seymore B. Young was conditionally called into the quorum of the Seventy, but he had to enter into plural marriage. In that revelation the Lord said, “for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my priesthood”.
Also, fundamentalist view the Journal of Discourses, the Ensign of the day, as scripture.
George Q. Cannon: “The Journal of Discourses
deservedly ranks as one of the standard works of the
Church, and every right-minded Saint will certainly
welcome with joy every number as it comes forth from
the press as an additional reflector of `the light
that shines from Zion’s hill’” (J.D., Pref. Vol 8).
Comment by Amanda — April 18, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
#23, #24-25, #26 and others:
Thank you for the articles and comments. I put aside my law books last night and read the first article. It did help. And thank you for letting me know that I don’t have to agree with the teaching of a future polygamy in heaven to retain my temple recommend (I was getting pretty worried). Also, I am glad I found this forum that allows me to ask questions that I wouldn’t be comfortable asking my family, visiting teachers, RS President, Bishop, who rarely understand me anyways.
Comment by Katie — April 18, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
I have been trying to distinguish between my thoughts on polygamy and my thoughts on FLDS compound-polygamy. Articles like this one: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/18606/polygamy-17 and if I’m going to be honest, the show, Big Love, made me rethink my across the board condemnation of polygamy. I thought all polygamy was just codified pedophilia. I try to distinguish now between consenting adults and coerced children. Having said that, I’ll echo what others have said and say it seems that Texas is pursuing the wrong people. Unless the abuse they are alleging is from a woman.
What strikes me about this case is that almost no one, not even the Texas authorities seem to believe polygmay is a prosecutable offense. So why not legalize it?
My objections to polygamy between consenting adults doesn’t extend to wanting it criminalized. I object to a lot of patriarchal practices but I respect the plurality of opinions in an open, democratic society, Another reason I love fMH is we all seem to be grappling with wanting to what is right and just, even if it involves elements we find abhorrent. That is one of the things I like best about my country. Oh I’m rambling. But I also love it when Mary Magdelene says, “make it a good one brothers and sisters.” I felt left out at first, because I’m not Mormon. Now I think she means me too. I made it a good one today.
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — April 18, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
You have made some very thought-provoking points.
Comment by Mormon Soprano — April 19, 2008 @ 5:01 am
I’m going to posit that Carlton meant #66 and NOT #65.
that’s me giving Carlton the benefit of the doubt - because as I read Janet’s comments, I’ve gotta co-sign them.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 19, 2008 @ 5:40 am
Mary, post 65 was a stupid post about gays being more dangerous than polygamists. It has been removed and replaced with Janet’s excellent post. My #66 shoud be deleted.
Comment by Carlton — April 19, 2008 @ 6:21 am
Carlton - I have deleted your #66. The original #65 was revolting and ECS deleted it.
Comment by Rebecca — April 19, 2008 @ 6:48 am
whew
thanks for takin’ out the trash.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 19, 2008 @ 7:15 am
That they’ve taken that approach is an interesting legal side point, one that kind of fits with the things that are going on in most inner cities.
The bottom line is that they aren’t taking away all the kids in the inner cities or from illegal immigrants who are having children in their teens.
The current tools and the current milieu don’t really fit with the issue. Which leaves me conflicted.
Basically, between Lawrence and the decriminalization of adultery it is very hard to find a basis to prosecute someone who is avoiding technical bigamy (and the mess that common law marriage can create without common law divorce … in Texas all it takes is an agreement to marry and to cohabitate to be common law married — but without the agreement, twenty years together isn’t enough to create a common aw marriage).
Anyway, I don’t have firm conclusions, which is why I continue to read.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — April 19, 2008 @ 7:58 am
What’s up with the ” taking away all the kids in the inner cities or from illegal immigrants who are having children in their teens,” comment? You’re not really trying to make the point that teen pregnancy is a black and immigrant problem are you? Am I missing something?
Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — April 19, 2008 @ 8:11 am
Like many of the readers, I have serious problems with the doctrine of “plural marriage” in the Church. But I also have problems with the cognitive dissonance of many members of the Church regarding modern polygamy. When our religion practiced polygyny, it was a commandment of the Lord, so the government should have left us alone to practice according to the dictates of our faith. But now that we no longer practice, polygyny is by its very nature abusive, and the government should intervene.
This hypocrisy is simply untenable. If we believe polygyny is inherently abusive, we should be very skeptical about it in any case, even in that of our own history. Or if we believe our faith should have been given the freedom to practice it as part of our religion, then we should support the right of other faiths to do so. They believe it is a commandment of God every bit as much as the early Saints did. We should be morally consistent.
Personally, I believe that government intervention might be justified based on the coercion in the FLDS practice of marrying off 14 year old children. The polygamy per se should not be a factor. It should not be illegal for consenting adults to enter into alternative marriages, whether polygamous, homosexual, or otherwise.
46: I think you have a very valid point. We are not so far removed from those concepts as we believe. I wonder if that isn’t one of the reasons LDSaints get so passionate about the FLDS concepts; we recognize something of ourselves in them.
Comment by Derek — April 19, 2008 @ 8:45 am
Amanda (67)–
Interesting quotation from GC; i hadn’t seen it before. Nonetheless, I’ll give you a hundred bucks if you can find me a single LDS leader today willing to assert such a thing. Especially since the JOD contains self-contradictory stuff. I find it really fun and often inspiring–we have the full set–but doctrine? Only sometimes.
You’re correct about church leaders mostly engaging in the principle, which is why my argument rested with the “mainstream populace.” Your comment doesn’t actually contradict anything I said. But you do know the 20-25% statistics is heavily debated, though, right? Other experts put the guestimate as low as 7%. Considering the secrecy–especially post-Manifesto–it’s hard to really know. I don’t think leadership unilaterally involved plural marriage except perhaps for a brief period of time, but I’m admittedly relying on memory. My kiddo is trying to find new and exciting ways to kill himself, so please forgive my ambiguity. Once the tot takes a nap or goes down for the night I’ll try to find you some harder evidence. Still, my assertion regarding mainstreaming holds. Far more members received second endowments, for instance, than engaged in plural marriage (unless we’re counting serial marriage post-spousal death. We’re not, are we?). While some leaders did preach sermons touting plural marriage as essential to exaltation (though NOT, markedly, salvation) those sermons never translated into practical reality and lay members weren’t, by and large, required to engage plural marriage. They *were* of course, required to sustain those who did engage in it.
One general note, and I’m sure you’ve noticed this if you’ve been thoroughly researching the topic: a lot of secondary documents play a bit fast and loose interpreting primary sources. If you find something truly crucial, chase down the footnote if at all possible. They’re slippery little blighters. For instance, both John Krakauer’s *Banner of Heaven* and Richared Van Wagoner’s *Mormon Polygamy: A History* flat out state that we believe polygamy to be “the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man.” My source for the quotation is actually William Clayton, not JS (though JS may have said it first) and the bit before the quotation marks starts says “. . . plural and celestial marriage.” Most sources which use the quote also reference 132; both sources open up the possibility of eternal marriage, and not necessarily eternal *plural* marriage as being the focus. Unless you have the primary source, it pays to be wary. Either way, I’d still disagree with Clayton. The Atonement trumps marriage.
Comment by Janet — April 19, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Yes, Janet, I totally agree. Until I see a quote from Joseph Smith or a prophet speaking as doctrine (and not just personal opinion or assumption, which was common, or someone else interpreting something a prophet said) that says polygamy is essential to exaltation, I don’t believe it. I think we have plenty of quotes that say otherwise.
Comment by Stephanie — April 19, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
Stephanie, who cares if Joseph said polygamy was essential to exaltation? You could invoke the “he was only speaking as a man, not as the prophet” copout. Remember Zelph?
You mentioned doctrine. I remember BCC had a great post a while back about defining doctrine. I’ll try to find it.
Comment by Carlton — April 19, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Here it is:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2006/09/authorized-doctrine/
Comment by Carlton — April 19, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Stephanie,
It’s odd that the LDS church would allow non-doctrinal sermons in the Teachings of the Presidents series. Just go through the Brigham Young manual and read the full sermons that the current “doctrine” was taken from. Read what was taught in General Conference when prophets spoke with the Spirit intsead of the teleprompter.
Janet,
Can you please give some examples of the “self-contradictory” stuff in the JoD?
Comment by Amanda — April 19, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
I feel the same revulsion to polygamy and so often it falls off that proverbial shelf where I keep it. But here is a thought; While it was commanded in the early church to some, I also believe it is not the higher principle. For example, when Abraham was commanded by God to kill his son, that commandment was essential to his salvation. Had Abraham disobeyed, he would not have recieved the blessing that God was ready to promise him contingent upon this test. Consider all that was promised to Abraham, innumerable posterity, Christ being born in his lineage, the gospel, and on and on. Moses was required to give up his claim to the pharaonic lineage, Adam had to leave the Garden of Eden to suffer in the flesh. There is a pattern of extreme sacrifice required in the scriptures when God wants to test or refine his people. Similarly, when the church was restored, polygamy may have been essential to those commanded to live it. In our time it is not. Thankfully, we also believe in modern revelation.
Here is where we take issue with the FLDS. They are not Mormon and have never been Mormon because they chose one principle at the expense of much of the rest. They were so attached to it that they could not let God change his mind, as he did with Abraham. In a sense thier position could be likened to a relative of Abraham forming a sect based on the idea of sacrificing your son, using the proof that God had commanded Abraham. The FLDS left the church to be able to follow plural marriage. In our church we follow the gospel of Christ because we have each hopefully recieved a personal witness that it is true. Warren Jeffs is a hypocritical fraud, disobeying many of his own rules. The essential difference is that he set himself up to be a false prophet, and uses fear to manipulate his followers.
In section 132 in the Lord’s words to Emma (which I find extremely painful), he does refer to the trials she has been given to endure as similar to the Abrahamic sacrifice and says that he will prepare a way for her to escape.
Comment by Annie Cash — April 19, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
FYI: Stan Shepp won his case due to the fact I could not PAY the thousands of dollars it took to get a mental health evaluation. I could not prove he was a danger to her due to lack of money… That’s how our legal proceedings win cases, not the facts, but who has the money.
Tracey Roberts (Shepp v. Shepp)
Comment by Tracey Roberts — April 19, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Annie,
Whose teachings are closer to the prophets of the 1800’s, the fundamentalist, or the LDS Church today? We’ve seen on this list that the LDS no longer hold the General Conference talks of the 19th century to be doctrinal. The fundamentalist do. The LDS no longer believe in the gathering, plural marriage, united order, rebaptism, women administering, Adam-God, etc..
For a more complete list of doctrinal changes you can read Ogden Kraut’s 95 Thesis.
Comment by Amanda — April 19, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Carlton, okay, I concede that until I hear that polygamy is essential to salvation as authorized doctrine, I don’t believe it.
Amanda, I read the entire lesson from the Brigham Young manual (used for Priesthood/RS in 1999) called “Understanding the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage”. It did not say a word about plural marriage.
Yes, I believe plural marriage was commanded by God in the early church as a sacrifice for certain individuals. But, I don’t believe it is essential to salvation or part of the plan of happiness. I just don’t. And now that I finally have come to this conclusion, I have peace on the matter. Others may have a different opinion, but this is what makes sense to me.
Comment by Stephanie — April 19, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Amanda,
In early church history alot of teachings came line upon line. Women even gave priesthood blessings which bothered some men and questioned Joseph Smith about it. He asked if the blessings had worked and when they said yes, he responded with something to the effect of “Well, then what is the problem?” This was not changed until well after the prophet’s death under another prophet. At the later time the church was in need of a more clear organizational structure, and priesthood blessings became the responsibility of the male priesthood holders. I agree that things have changed, but the real question is, do we believe that the living prophet is the prophet or not?
That being said, some of the “doctrines” you have mentioned such as blood atonement have not been sufficiently shown to be actual doctrines of the church, but may have been more cultural. We have full time historians both inside and outside the church trying to make sense of the records we have, some of which may or may not be documented by today’s standards. What I am saying is that these are not clear cut issues. While some of these things have been said by early leaders and do raise questions, again, how do we sort out what is doctrine and what is speculation and human error?
To say that the FLDS ( I refuse to call them fundamentalists) follow more closely the restored gospel is wrong because they miss the big picture, that our gospel is centered on Jesus Christ and that everything else is just an appendage to that. Gladly, the majority of the members did get it. It seems that if God is capable of giving a commandment, he can also take it away.
But there is still so much I do not understand.
Comment by Annie — April 19, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Starfoxy–#24,
I haven’t read all of the posts on here so I’m not sure if this point has already been addressed, but I am a family law attorney in Texas, and I just wanted to clear something up about Texas law quickly. Common law marriage can and does exist in Texas, as long as the three requirements referenced in your post are met. Common law marriage is treated as any other legal marriage in Texas (ie: if the common law marriage is proved up or aknowledged, the only way to dissolve it would be through a divorce). But, the key term in the previous sentence is legal. An existing imediment to marriage (like already being married) would disqualify a couple from legally claiming common law marriage status. In the FLDS scenario, my understanding is that the husband is already legally married to one wife (either through the traditional apply for a marriage license means or through a common law arrangement) when he “weds” the other women. The second through whatever number sister wives could not legally claim a common law marriage with the husband, as an impediment to marriage exists for him.
I hope this makes sense and isn’t too didactic. Happy to answer any other questions about our sometimes quirky family law. Thanks.
Comment by Kate — April 19, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
I had another thought with regard to the quotes in #63. All of these were given before the Manifesto in 1890. If the Lord gave the commandment of polygamy as a test, then He wouldn’t footnote it with a clarification that this is just a test. It wouldn’t be a true sacrifice if the people being asked to live it knew that it was a sacrifice. It would have been much easier for Abraham to prepare to sacrifice Isaac if he knew it was just a test.
It makes sense to me that the prophets of the time would use such strong language and say that polygamy is essential for exaltation because it was for THEM. It was a sacrifice they were asked to live. I look at these quotes like I look at Mosaic law. It was necessary and expedient for the people of that time. But, since the Manifesto in 1890, I do not believe they apply to us in our time.
Comment by Stephanie — April 19, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Kate,
#88,
I have a couple of questions I’d like to ask you. Would you please email me at guy.murray at gmail.com
Thanks,
Guy Murray
Comment by Guy Murray — April 19, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
ECS,
Sorry for the late response–I hadn’t followed the Shep case and didn’t get a chance to read it until today. Very interesting stuff and it is clear my off-the-cuff analysis was overly simplistic. Although Shep isn’t applicable to Texas, I think Shep’s analysis of the line of U.S. Supreme Court cases that do apply in Texas is correct–i.e. that Yoder applies due to the presence of both a free exercise question and a freedom of speech question which creates the hybrid situation referenced in Smith.
Thus the state has to 1) find the parent’s advocacy of illegal conduct is causing or will cause harm to the child’s physical and psychological well-being AND THEN 2) apply strict scrutiny when determining if it is using the least restrive means to further its interest in the protection of the child so as not to violate the parent’s free speech and free exercise rights.
Cases such as this are going to be heavily fact dependent and it isn’t at all obvious that merely advocating illegal conduct is going to rise to the level of causing physical or psychological harm to the child under the law–as it didn’t in the Shep case. Advocacy of polygamy might pass muster but non-abstract teaching of a duty to be a suicide bomber probably won’t.
Even if psychological harm is determined to be taking place, the state must still overcome the strict scrutiny test which, as you know, is usually extremely difficult. I suspect, though, that given we are talking about the welfare of children, once the physical or psychological harm threshhold is met, courts will lower the strict scrutiny hurdle somewhat.
Comment by Mathew — April 19, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Amanda–are you by any chance a member of an offshoot LDS group? I’m not trying to be disrespectful; I’ve just never met a mainstream Mormon who believed the JOD to be unfailing doctrine. People do cherry pick of course, primarily with the blood atonement/death penalty argument. But consider for a second the fact that both the Bible and BoM contain passages which at least initially appear contradictory (we can reconcile much of those contradictions, of course) and they are, in comparison to the JOD, quite short. The JOD is more than 20 volumes, and contains the texts of 1,438 speeches given by over fifty different people, not all of whom were even general authorities. Furthermore, it wasn’t even considered an official canonical work to its contemporaries (though some of the sermons within it, no doubt, were). It was, essentially, an inspirational religious magazine one good fellow compiled and sold for profit.
The Adam/God theory is a standard example, however. BY often preached this idea, but at least once suggested this was perhaps allegory rather than actual doctrine (JOD 5: 331-332).And how about BY’s assertion that there are people living on the sun and moon? (JOD 13: 95)Doctrine? I think not.
Naturally the anti-Mormons seize upon this stuff willy-nilly, and I can’t say I blame them entirely. They make great red herrings away from what we *do* hold as central doctrine, namely that Jesus is the Christ, we can be redeemed from our sins and return to God, priesthood remains in force on the earth, and the human family can be bound by the keys of the restoration. There’s a lot of inspiring stuff in the JOD, but yes, I sincerely believe we’d be missing the mark to take all of it as gospel. Heck, not all of it even came from people authorized to officially pronounce doctrine in the first place.
I don’t know if this would interest you or not, but we see similarities today. I once had the chance to work in the archives and found textual disagreement between GAs regarding evolution. Spirited disagreement! Did it harm my belief in Jesus? Nope. The church has no official position on evolution and the opinions of certain GAs, who have disagreed and spoken in public regarding their specific beliefs, don’t really phase me. We don’t know everything. We’re human and we like to think about stuff and then talk about it–and that includes GAs. If we were always right with our conjecture, we’d be God. Which, obviously, we are not.
Comment by Janet — April 19, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
Re: #7
Why would any “innocent” person be affliated with the FLDS sect?
Oh, and thanks so much for mocking my diction. Very nice.
Comment by SAP — April 19, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
Mat - I think the FLDS facts could justify state intervention. First, the FLDS children are completely isolated from the outside world and told that God wants them to engage in illegal behavior (plural marriage). Shepp’s daughter wasn’t isolated from outside influences - her own mother brought the lawsuit to prevent her father from talking about plural marriage. The Shepp daughter, unlike the FLDS children, was exposed to alternative lifestyles and information that challeged the plural marriage requirement.
Second, there’s no evidence that the daughter in Shepp would have the opportunity to engage in plural marriage. The FLDS community, however, was centered around plural marriage.
Third, even though strict scrutiny is a high bar, I think the court would be sympathetic to the very real potential - if not actual - phyiscal and mental harm inflicted upon these young children.
It’s a tragic case, either way.
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 5:20 am
Has anyone else wondered where all the fathers of the FLDS chlidren are? Why aren’t the fathers begging to be reunited with their children in media interviews? Where are the fathers?
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 5:31 am
Are you seriously suggesting, ECS, that each of these fathers do not love their children? Do you have any evidence of that? Could you perhaps cut them just a bit of slack, in that just about everything short of the Texas national guard invaded their homes, forcing them out at gunpoint, taking their wives and children.
Perhaps they are just a bit hesitant to stir up any further trouble. The interviews I have seen with the few men who have spoken don’t suggest to me the fathers love their children any less than the mothers.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 20, 2008 @ 8:59 am
ECS,
Only one state in the United States (you probably know which one) allows for same sex marriage. Should the children of those unions, be taken from their homes?
Comment by Guy Murray — April 20, 2008 @ 9:15 am
I suspect the fathers are hiding.
Comment by Stephanie — April 20, 2008 @ 9:32 am
ECS, as you know from private conversation I *have* wondered what’s up with the fathers. While their roles as parents may not be as all-consuming as that of an FLDS mother, I suspect there’s an additional reason besides parental desperation contributing to the lack of interviews with the men. The media would rather talk to the women. The men’s attire is mainstream. They lack exotic appeal. And fathers rarely command the pathos that mothers do in the media anyhow, for whatever reason. In short, the moms make better above-the-fold sales.
How’s that for a wee bit of cynicism?
Comment by Janet — April 20, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Guy - The mothers seem to have recovered from the psychological trauma of the raid well enough to ask to see their children. I said nothing in my comment about whether the FLDS fathers love their children. They are noticeably absent, however.
Um, I’m afraid to ask, but what does same-sex marriage have to do with this?
Janet - you’re probably right about the sensationalism of interviewing the mothers over the fathers. That said, there’s nothing stopping the fathers from standing by their wives’ side in these media interviews. Where are they?
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
I too have been wondering where the fathers have been hiding.
And in my worst cynical moments I flippantly tell myself, “well, the fathers probably can’t remember exactly who are their children. And if a man has so many wives… by which one does he stand for the photo op? Or does he stand in the middle of a herd of women and young children - him sporting a pasty look of self-righteousness?
Like I already said, I don’t have a friendly outlook on this and I just ate a sandwich. My guess is the tryptophan is kickin’ in from the turkey on whole wheat with mayo.
can i say - those hairdos of the moms seem to defy gravity while simultaneously sporting a rubiks cube of braiding. mercy!
gosh, it’s a great day out there sisters and brothers.
Comment by Mary Magdalene — April 20, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Count me in as one of those wondering where the fathers are in all of this. I don’t care how many wives you have, if you aren’t willing to stand by them in a situation like this, you don’t deserve to be married.
Comment by Quimby — April 20, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Clearly the “absence” of fathers is a public relations move. People care a lot more about grieving mothers than they do about grieving fathers, especially grieving fathers who the public already see as greedy, perverse for not being monogamous. Beyond that, if fathers came out they’d be pleading for the return of their, what, 30 children from multiple mothers? Whereas the moms can plead for the return of their 4 or 5 children or whatever. There’s more of an element of normalcy. The mothers can answer questions and they’re just like any other mother of kids, who wants them returned. If the dads become too visible, it reminds the public/judicial system that this situation is not “normal,” and they’re less inclined to be sympathetic with the pleas of parents, and more inclined to keep the kids separated from these abnormal living arrangements…
Comment by Anon Birth Mom — April 20, 2008 @ 3:11 pm
I think you are reading too much into the absence of the fathers. I doubt it’s a PR thing, or a non-caring thing. It’s simple logic and self-preservation.
FLDS Man X legally marries FLDS woman A and spiritually marries FLDS women B and C 10 years ago in Colorado City. Assume for now that all were of legal age when they connected.
Texas is cracking down on polygamists today. If we follow ECS’ train of thought (which I don’t necessarily agree with, I’m more in line with Kate’s legal reasoning in #88) and it’s possible to use Texas’ common-law marriage laws to establish legal relationships here, who is in danger of being convicted as a Polygamist?
Woman A? Nope, she’s only connected to one other, Man X.
Woman B? Nope, she’s only connected to one other, Man X.
Woman C? Nope, she’s only connected to one other, Man X.
Man X? Yup, He’s now considered married to three people, Women A, B, and C.
Again, I don’t really think that Texas can establish legally wedded relationships here so the exercise may be moot, but argue for a second that bigamy prosecution are a real possibility, especially given that Texas seems to be willing to arrest/detain/remove anyone connected to YFZ.
Children R, S, T, U and V are the offspring of Man X and Woman A. They are legitimate children in the eyes of Texas. These children are in state custody until a legal hearing where the parents can protest the removal.
Do both parents attend the hearing?
Man X is in jeopardy of being arrested if he shows his face. He would go to jail and the family is left without its father.
Woman A is in no such jeopardy. In the eyes of the law she is no polygamist.
It makes perfect sense from an FLDS point of view that Man X stay in the shadows and let Woman A handle the courthouse.
Just my $0.02.
Comment by Chad too — April 20, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
… and by “self-preservation” I meant of these family units, not just preservation of the fathers. Just to be clear.
Comment by Chad too — April 20, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
Chad too - I’m not sure why the state of Texas isn’t arresting the men for bigamy. Regardless, Man X is already known to the state authorities, so the “family” will be without a father if Man X continues to hide in the shadows or if Man X is arrested and imprisoned for breaking the laws.
Anon - The FLDS men being absent from the proceedings isn’t fooling anyone into thinking this situation is “normal”. Their absence raises the following possibilities - the men are: (1) cowards, (2) callous to their wives’ plight of defending themselves in front of the media alone, (3) indifferent to their children, or (4) all of the above.
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
I’d guess that the reason Texas isn’t arresting the men for bigamy is, as Texas family law attorney Kate so eloquently put it, it’s unlikely the charges would stick.
Child abuse/underage sex charges are much more likely to stand in court.
Regardless of which tack Texas chooses to pursue, it would be absolutely stupid for any of these men to show their faces in court. It’s legal suicide. I don’t see it as cowardice, I see it as survival.
Comment by Chad too — April 20, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Chad - I didn’t see the part in Kate’s comment about the charges not sticking. Maybe I missed it - could you point it out to me?
It may be stupid for the men to support their families through this, but their absence shows that the FLDS men are benefitting from a lifestyle for which the women and children (especially the children) are bearing the very public costs. These men are cowards for not publicly supporting their wives and children.
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Fair enough: in comment 88 Kate talks about how, since these men do have one legal wife there is a legal impediment to any other relationship being considered a common-law marriage. None of the other sister-wives could claim (even if they wanted to, remember these women are very clever about maintaining there single legal status for both welfare purposes and avoiding prosecution) to be common-law married to him since he already has a legal wife.
Since none of the spiritual marriages could be considered a legal Texas marriage, there is no bigamy taking place, at least not as the statute is written. Polygamy/bigamy charges wouldn’t stick because there is no legal second/third/fourth/etc. marriage.
In the eyes of the law he’s a married man enjoying the company of mistresses with his legal wife’s understanding and permission.
As to the public costs, no one put a gun to these women’s heads and forced them to talk to Matt Lauer, husband present or otherwise. The men would be just as absent if they were in prison awaiting trial. At least on the outside they can work together to defend themselves.
Comment by Chad too — April 20, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
A lot more than FGM
And, you know this exactly how?
You make some mighty brave assumptions here, ECS, from the relative comfort and safety of your own home and intact family.
Comment by Guy Murray — April 20, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Chad - I’m not sure that is the correct reading of the law. I quoted the Texas bigamy statute in my comment #30. If the man is legally married to one of his wives, he does not need to be legally married to his second, third or fourth wife to violate Texas’ bigamy law. The language in theTexas statute is similar to Utah’s bigamy statute, where a man “purporting to marry” another woman while legally married to another woman violates the statute. Therefore, the man does not have to legally marry the second wife. He only has to act as if he’s going to marry her or “purport” to marry her.
It’s clear that the FLDS men are acting as if they are married to their plural wives. Although they do not seek state recognition of their plural marriages through marriage licenses, they do marry their additional wives in religious ceremonies. These religious marriages are sufficient to trigger culpability under the Texas bigamy laws.
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
Could you be more specific? This doesn’t answer my question.
Perhaps. I do know, however, that if my husband didn’t publicly stand by me while my child was taken away from our home, then he would be a coward. I’d be happy to take back my assumption if we learn why these men are in hiding while the women and children bear the brunt of the Texas investigation.
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
probably . . .but I don’t think it would matter.
there. but for the grace of God
Comment by Guy Murray — April 20, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
LOL, Guy. Don’t worry - my sister wives and their children are well hidden from the state authorities. You won’t be seeing us on the Today Show anytime soon.
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
You’re going to have a really tough time with “purporting to marry” in a case where both parties have a vested interest in maintaining that their relationship was deliberately not legitimized. Usually in a common-law case one of the parties is looking to establish a legal tie. In these cases, neither party wants that. It would be extremely easy to show that neither party had any desire to establish a legal relationship and their mutual understanding was that they were going into this without the benefit of the law.
If a Texas court interprets “purporting” too broadly the definition would start to take in unmarried non-FLDS couples living together and force people into marriages neither one wants. It could also invalidate the statute entirely. Doubtful that is going to happen.
If interpreted narrowly, then the positive steps the FLDS took to maintain a non-legal relationship show their intent and a court would have to rule the what they “purported” was a thought-out deliberately planned non-legal relationship.
The “purporting” verbiage has not been tested in court in Texas or Utah as far as I know. It’s tenuous and weak, and a poor hinge to hang this door on.
Comment by Chad too — April 20, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
Chad - Your analysis about the “purporting to marry” language is wrong. Check out the Utah Supreme Court case of State v. Holm and get back to me. I’ve got to go to bed now, but I’ll be around tomorrow. Or feel free to email me at fmhecs at gmail dot com. Thanks!
Comment by ECS — April 20, 2008 @ 7:28 pm
ESC says
It may be stupid for the men to support their families through this, but their absence shows that the FLDS men are benefitting from a lifestyle for which the women and children (especially the children) are bearing the very public costs. These men are cowards for not publicly supporting their wives and children.
ESC – rather lash out at you, I am trying to understand why your comment makes me so angry. I guess it is because I take it as an indictment of my Mormon polygamous great grandfather. Rather than stick around in Utah and face possible arrest and jail time for practicing what he considered his religion, he took his three wives and who knows how many kids and hid out in the Mexican colonies for 25 years. I realize that his situation and that of the FLDS is not exactly the same. But I believe the FLDS are likewise trying to live their religion. They have been in a sense hiding out for years and their men’s failure to appear publicly is probably due to their long time practice of keeping their heads down to avoid just the sort thing they find themselves in the middle of. If I wasn’t a product of polygamous blood lines and a polygamous theology to boot, I just might be piling on them along with you and many others. But knowing where I come from religiously and ancestrally, it would feel hypocritical to do so now.
Comment by Sanford Barrett — April 20, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Sanford, your ancestors’ choices are not your own - and note that he did, indeed, take his wife and children with him, rather than allowing them to suffer on their own.
I am with ECS on this. I think those men are coming across as cowardly and uncaring. In the long run, it is detrimental to their cause: When I see a husband and father unwilling to stand by his wife and children when they are being publically humiliated and pulled through the mud and muck of trial by media, it makes me seriously doubt his character (as it would if I saw a wife and mother unwilling to stand by her husband’s side in a similar situation).
Comment by Quimby — April 20, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
Folks, I admit I haven’t read more than the first 70 or so comments here, so forgive me if someone else has already given this info, but there is a fascinating Primer available on polygamy put out in 2005 by the Utah and Arizona State Governments. I used it in PDF form while I was writing a paper on Judith Butler’s dialectics theory and comparing Antigone (Sophocles) to polygamous groups as “alternative kinships.”
I can’t figure out how to link on this site, but if you copy and paste this URL, you can get to an html version of the Primer.
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=the+primer+polygamy+utah+arizona&fr=yfp-t-501&u=attorneygeneral.utah.gov/polygamy/The_Primer.pdf&w=primer+primers+polygamy+utah+arizona&d=BSC9H_H_QoS4&icp=1&.intl=us
Comment by apaperbackwriter — April 20, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
ECS: Thanks for pointing me to Holm. I am much more persuaded by Justice Durham’s dissent (that purporting to marry means purporting to legally marry) than I am by that majority opinion. I still think that “purporting” is a leaky boat in murky waters.
Even still, I think it telling that even post Holm, the Utah State AG is on record as saying that he would go after underage sex and child abuse charges, but not bigamy. It’s a much harder fight than going after provable underage sex.
Are their any cases similar to Holm where another polygamist has been convicted in a similar manner?
Comment by Chad too — April 20, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Like Katie, the whole polygamy issue is a major bone in my side.
That said, I find myself crazy angry at Texas and our entire culture. I agree with prosecuting the underaged marriages, but the arguments against and disgust with polygamy coming from a culture that virtually CELEBRATES single parenthood, homosexuality, and sexual liberation is stunning.
So, it’s fine for celebrities and professional athletes to shack up, sleep around, produce offspring all over the globe, but it’s BAD for one man and two women to actually COMMIT to each other and STAY TOGETHER for the rest of their lives with their children?
Someone explain the logic to me…I can’t seem to grasp it.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — April 20, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
I read this post and what jumped out at me was this.
The author mentions FGM and how awful it is but makes no mention of MGM (male genital mutilation or circumcision). MGM is not illegal in the good ol’ USofA even though FGM is. This is blatant discrimination against all male infants. I find it enfuriating that the quorum have time to tell us to only wear one set of earings in our ears and men to not pierce at all yet they can’t be bothered to tell parents not to let doctors mutilate their baby boys.
Rediculous!
Comment by Maria — April 20, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
#44 It was not a saving or central principle like faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, spreading the gospel throughout the nations.
Wow. You must not have attended seminary? At least until I graduated (in 1982) we were still being taught that you could not be exalted unless you accepted polygamy.
#56 …in a public school, kids are usually exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions.
You think? I think it’s about the opposite. Certainly the opinions in public school is not the SAME that the FLDS are getting, but I’d say it’s a pretty narrow set.
Ah, you’re a teacher. I get it. (P.S. It’s “homeschool” not “home-school.”)
While I tend to agree with ECS about the men hiding out, it is true that in our own history polygamist men hid very regularly, leaving their wives and children alone. In addition, many “subsequent” wives and their children were sent away to live alone. Let’s fairly call the “cowards” here.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — April 20, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
I really do not understand how people who claim to be “Christians” could practice the kind of polygamy that the FLDS church does? The Bible specifically states that a man should not marry a woman and her sister, or both mother and a daughter, etc. Also, there is NOTHING Biblical about a family being “re-assigned” from one man to another man. Is the Bible jsut some archaic book to these people?
Maybe someone could explain to me on what these people justify their beliefs.
Comment by SkyeBlue — April 20, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
I spent four years in seminary. I do not consider everything that I was taught in seminary to be true. One of my teachers was constantly teaching that hockey was right up there with the gospel in importance. I might have learned as much about the Pittsburgh Penguins that year as I did the scriptures. Besides the hockey, we sometimes got weak doctrinal positions and a lot of fluff. We were taught got some good solid information from time to time. I know the teachers were trying hard, but not every last thing taught in seminary is doctrinally accurate.
I might take an argument about polygamy being central doctrine of importance to us if I heard it from the prophet over the pulpit at general conference.
I would like to restate a point that has been made throughout this discussion. You can look particularly at Stephanie’s points in 64, 66, 79, 86, and 89.
Back in the 19th century, polygamy may have been essential to the salvation of those who were invited or commanded to practice it. That does not mean that it is essential to our salvation. We are not held accountable for a practice that was commanded for a certain time.
To the people who lived under the law of Moses, observing the law that they were given was essential to their salvation. Certain people were commanded to observe certain items of grooming, for example. Few of these things are necessary for our salvation.
I know it’s not so kosher to quote scripture on the blogs, but the Mormon church has never abandoned the Book of Mormon which states (and always trumps the Journal of Discourses):
(The next part of the passage seems especially relevant to the FLDS situation nowadays, speaking of the effect of men setting up a system other than monogamy for their own benefit. “For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people…”)
* * *
Polygamy was a commandment that was revoked by 1890 even though it took a few years for all instances to die out and that some outliers like [I’ve decided to not list names; at least one instance is in my immediate ancestry] had to be disciplined by the church.
One of the reasons that some of the polygamy-as-essential-to-salvation language may have lasted in the church, like the experience that Alison Moore Smith wrote about, is that the children of some of the polygamists were still processing their own experiences and that of their parents. Without looking more into it, I would suggest that Joseph Fielding Smith who served through 1972 was the last child of polygamists to serve as a prophet. To his parents, polygamy may have been essential to their salvation. It was a commandment given to them. I’m not saying that Joseph Fielding Smith ever taught polygamy. I seriously doubt that, but I’m just saying that church members of his generation may have kept some of the language and concepts in their collective memory.
To wrap up my attempt to respond to Alison in comment 123, polygamy may have been an essential practice for some of the membership of the church between its inception in the 1830s and the Manifesto in 1890. It is not essential to us.
Comment by Researcher — April 21, 2008 @ 7:23 am
I agree with skyblue (#124). I was always under the impression that FLDS were “Mormons” who practiced polygamy, in a loose sense. But I am astounded at the way they treat so lightly family ties and bonds.
I was reading an article yesterday about a man that was kicked out of FLDS by Jeffs. The man said he was surpised that his wives could just leave him and be reassigned like that. He thought that they loved him and had a good marriage (paraphrasing)
OT: There was a quote in the same article that is driving me crazy: “We are Mormons so we swim with our clothes on.” What? I can just imagine my neighbors coming up to me now and asking if I swim with my clothes on.
Comment by gypsymom — April 21, 2008 @ 7:36 am
Chad - the dissenting opinion may seem more reasonable to you, but if you look at the legislative intent and history behind the Utah bigamy statute, it’s clear that the majority’s reading of the “purporting to marry” language is correct.
The Utah legislature included the “purporting to marry” language in the statute to prosecute men who tried to evade the bigamy law by claiming they were “spiritually” married to their plural wives in accordance with their religious beliefs, and not legally married. Without this language in the statute, men participating in polygamous relationships would have been very difficult to prosecute. For a similar analysis, see the Tom Green case (State v. Green) and the Potter v. Murray City case, 585 F. Supp. 1126 (D. Utah 1984), aff’d, 760 F.2d 1065 (10th Cir. 1985).
Coincidentally, I saw the last few seconds of an interview this morning with four FLDS men on the CBS Early Show. I’ll see if I can find the link.
Comment by ECS — April 21, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Because the LDS Church has not repudiated the language allowing plural marriage in D&C Section 132, I think it’s an open question as to whether polygamy is part of LDS doctrine (and required for exaltation). The original Manifestos stated that the LDS Church would abide by the law of the land, but they were careful not to renounce polygamy as a doctrine.
Fast forward a few decades, and President Hinckley states in an off-hand remark in a media interview that polygamy is not “doctrinal”. So who knows.
Comment by ECS — April 21, 2008 @ 8:10 am
Here’s the link to the CBS interview. One of the men in the interview said he wasn’t aware of laws against underage girls marrying (excerpt below). If nothing else, the state raid on the compound might have been justified to raise their awareness that marrying underage girls is illegal.
Another man said that he was heartbroken about being separated from his children. Very sad.
Comment by ECS — April 21, 2008 @ 8:25 am
Alison Moore Smith–If we assumed everything taught in every seminary class actually counted as doctrine, we’d be in a very sour pickle. I think Carlton linked a BCC article on what counts as doctrine. You might want to check it out. Certainly the interpretation of D&C 132 to which I believe you are alluding is quite common. It is not, however, universal.Thank goodness.
Comment by Janet — April 21, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
I guess in a contry like ours that is supposed to have freedom of religion, if 3+ of age, consenting adults choose to be in a polygamous relationship on religious grounds then personally I have no problem with it, but when a group routinely forces underage girls into marrying then it seems to me it is nothing better than a sex-abuse cult. There are so many htings about this group that are so disturbing to me. How as Christians can they justify sending away (abandoning) their own sons so that older men will not have competition for young girls? Another thinkg that really bothers me is how almost all the women from the FLDS compound spoke in such monotone voices, like some kind of robots or “Stepford wives”. Even when I have seen them interviewed on TV in instances other than this they all look so totally unhappy and miserable. It is very sad.
They remind me of the women I have seen from fundamentalist Muslim countries. Every intracasie of their lives from birth thru who they will marry and how they will dress, is dictated to them by men.
Comment by SkyeBlue — April 21, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
Yes, I’m glad to see that the LDS church has come out with the distinctions between the FLDS and the LDS faith. The lack of free agency for these young girls/children concerns me the most. Also, the isolation. Considering that we must have opposition in all things to know good from evil, it would be hard to have any experience with opposition if you’ve led a sheltered life.
And, yes, consenting to marriage and certain polygamous practicesw when you’re 18 years and older is different from when you’re 13 or 14 and have no other options through your isolated life. It seems in the Book of Mormon that the women and children had choice it these matters. Look at Alma’s children who made different choices.
Comment by Yet another Janet — April 21, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I do not consider everything that I was taught in seminary to be true.
To both Research and Janet, neither do I. My point was that whether or not it IS a saving principle, it certainly had been TAUGHT that way for DECADES. In Seminary, in church classes, etc. And the teachings given were generally merely quotes of past church leaders that have never been refuted.
FWIW, many still believe it is and preach it as such. For example, Eldred G. Smith–the general current (and last) patriarch of the church (who is a relative of my husband)–went on about the necessity of polygyny for over 20 minutes just before he gave one of my children her patriarchal blessing just over a year ago. Not the most comfortable half hour of my life, but an example of how this is perpetuated.
The idea is also reinforced by the regular practice of allowing men to be sealed to more than one women and not allowing women to do the same unless they die first (or under one of the very rare exceptions). While it doesn’t necessary imply a requirement of polgyny, it at least reinforces CURRENT acceptability.
I might take an argument about polygamy being central doctrine of importance to us if I heard it from the prophet over the pulpit at general conference.
I suspect the position of many is that there are already more than ample authoritative sources positioning polygyn as a “central doctrine” whether it’s practiced today or not. And until a prophet over the pulpit RESCINDS it, it will stand.
Actually, I came by to thank whoever it was who posted the link to Eugene England’s paper. It was, honestly, the most helpful thing I have ever read. Thank you thank you thank you.
Comment by Alison Moore Smith — April 21, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
#123
Yup. I’m a teacher — and proud of it.
Any time you want a variety of opinions, sister, you just drop on over to any classroom in our school. Open your mind, and you’ll hear a few things. You might even learn something.
Your comments sound mighty condescending to me — perhaps I am missing something.
Do tell: how long has it been since you’ve visited a public school?
My apologies for using a different spelling of a word.
On a side note, I graduated from high school in 1983, and I don’t recall being taught that polygamy was necessary for salvation. Is it possible it was just one of your teachers who thought this was true? Good point about rescinding it, however. I’d certainly like to see it rescinded.
Comment by apaperbackwriter — April 21, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
The words “feminist” and “housewives” used in the same phrase, much less a website address which also contains the word “mormon”, is poignantly ironic. But I don’t perceive any tongue-in-cheek self awareness here. As a feminist who has endured systematic and unspeakable misogyny in the name of “religion” I am deeply offended and feel betrayed. Am I missing something?
God is not a man but we are all Children of God.
B.
Comment by B — April 21, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
God is not a man
Joseph Smith begs to differ.
Comment by Mark N. — April 22, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I’m a feminist but not Mormon or a housewife, and I love this blog. I’ve been following your conversations and struggles and have really learned a lot just by reading. As someone who is an outsider to the religion, it seems a little odd that people are basically saying the FLDS beliefs take away “free agency” as to age of marriage, children, etc and that this constitutes child abuse, or that underage girls are forced into marriage. I think this is dangerous for religious freedom. Quite frankly, by this standard and by my beliefs about what women should be able to do, I would consider most conservative Christian groups (including LDS) to be dangerously close to this abusive line. Pushing early marriage? Check. Patriarchy revered (in some form)? Check. The outside world is immoral? Check. It’s just a matter of degree and physical isolation. I think LDS theology (as well as any church without female theological leadership) is inherently unjust to women. Does that mean being raised LDS equals abuse, so much that children should be taken away?
If someone who is LDS chooses to get married to another member at 18 (which is not all that far from 16 in my book) that’s not frowned upon. It’s not religious brainwashing then, is it? What if that person happens to be 30 years older than you but is a good church member? Maybe it would be discouraged, but is it brainwashing? Is it abuse to be raised to marry in the faith? Pressure to choose a person of a certain standing (returned missionary?) I think there are a lot of parallels here.
Of course, if women really aren’t allowed to physically leave the FLDS though they want to, that’s one thing. But if they choose to stay because they truly believe in it - well, I don’t find it much different than choosing to stay in what I find a repressive LDS or other conservative Christian religion. (Aside from the social culture, from what I’ve read here I understand that in LDS belief, women are theologically inferior to men. And yes, I know there is disagreement about this, but that’s my read.)
If women really are being sexually abused by men they don’t want to be involved with, that’s one thing. If there’s physical abuse, or limited education based on gender, or boys being pushed out, that’s horrible and should be criminally prosecuted (with due process, of course.) But if the main issue here is protecting young women’s sexuality, I’m inclined to give them more credit that they do want to be in these relationships because it’s what they’ve been raised with. As weird as this may seem, it’s almost because of my very liberal views about sexual autonomy that I support young women choosing to enter into what I would consider culturally mutually consensual relationships. Though I would think she is limiting herself, it’s not too far from my friends from high school who are conservative evangelicals who got married early, keep quiet in church, submit to their husbands, teach their girls to fulfill certain roles.The law should respect her choice to choose that as it respects my right to have sex outside of marriage.
Obviously, I disagree with the FLDS on many, many aspects of their lifestyle and religious beliefs. But, enforcing a certain standard of morality (not civil rights, which should always be protected) should not be part of the law.
Comment by quail — April 22, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Hehe, sorry for the novel.
Comment by quail — April 22, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
quail, don’t apologize. You offer good food for thought. I’d considered the same things regarding my faith and the law. Mainstream Mormons don’t experience the same isolation from choice FLDS people do inasmuch as we don’t physically isolate ourselves from the world, but our ideological isolation can render the line fuzzy. I’ve had people tell me, flat out, that raising my children in a religious tradition they believe to be erroneous constitutes the preclusion of choice, and thus abuse. I find the assertion ridiculous, but I do understand where they come from. Our own culture is the air we breathe and it’s hard to see it as a conscripting force. It is, of course–but every child grows up with such conscripting forces. The people who think I’m dreadful for raising a Mormon child no doubt miss some of the ways their own “air” might be deleterious to children. Using our own default setting as the standard of virtue is simply dangerous. So is ignoring any activity sanctioned by a culture (such as ECS’s FGM example). Finding a balance? Tricky tricky tricky.
Comment by Janet — April 22, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
B–if you don’t see the “tongue in cheek(iness)” of the blog or its title, then you haven’t bothered to look around much. And for heaven’s sake, try not to imply that nobody here could possibly have suffered for their feminist beliefs. I’m very sorry for whatever you have endured, truly I am. I am sorrier still that you are not in scarce company, for misogyny abounds. But do try and realize that your company is not, indeed, scarce. I don’t want you to feel betrayed, but I also feel betrayed when someone makes assumptions about me with very little information. Get to know us. We may not be as dreadful as you think.
Comment by Janet — April 22, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Alison Moore Smith–hey! I’m related to your husband! Howdy, cousin
As for doctrine, I completely understand your assertion that a doctrine remains in force unless rescinded from the pulpit. That’s how I’d assume it worked as well. What’s that old dictum, silence gives consent? But apparently that’s not how the GAs necessarily see things. A few years ago i heard the church spokesman tell a group of African American saints (regarding really stupid racial folk-doctrines which used to be preached as actual doctrine) that if it isn’t being preached as doctrine NOW, then the leaders don’t consider it doctrine. I’d prefer renunciation to the let-it-die-out-over-years-and-years approach as well, but I am not running things.
Eugene rocks, doesn’t he? Can’t tell you how many times that man has made me feel better. He really was (and remains, no doubt) a Saint.
Comment by Janet — April 22, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Thanks, Janet. I very much agree with you - and I’m glad it’s got me thinking about these things. It’s a very fine line between cultural relativism and implicitly sanctioning potential abuse. How do we judge cultures that are not our own while protecting civil rights - the eternal question!
I’m just not comfortable with the actions regarding the FLDS on these grounds, and I think all religious people (including myself) should think about the implications of it. Slippery slope and all that - good thing I can read blogs all day to get different perspectives!
Comment by quail — April 22, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
I think this is a wonderful article on polygamy by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, I thought some of you might like to read it.
Of kings and courtiers
——————————————————————————–
Shmuley Boteach , THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 21, 2008
——————————————————————————–
About two months ago, my wife and I visited the Fundamentalist Mormon community of Colorado City, Arizona, the base of imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs. I had always wanted to see for myself how this community lives.
Arriving late in the afternoon, we went to the main supermarket, where tens of fundamentalist Mormons were out buying food with their families. They were understandably suspicious of these intruders and reluctant to engage us in conversation. After a while, the manager of the store came over to us and asked, with considerable warmth, if we had found what we were looking for. He politely confessed that the community was unused to outsiders and hinted that perhaps it was time for us to continue on our journey.
I told him that I was an Orthodox rabbi, that I had, thank God, eight kids, and that it was nice to see so many children in a community. I also told him that I had a long-standing relationship with the Mormon Church, and that I had always wanted to visit the Fundamentalist Mormons as well. He told me that if I was friendly with the official Mormon Church, then no doubt I had a negative view of their community - to which I responded that I tended to make judgments based on my own observations rather than on what I had been told. We spoke a little to some of the young mothers we met, although I could not say whether any of these women were younger than the age of consent.
The people were pleasant, albeit suspicious. They lived lives bereft of any extravagance, and that was about all I could conclude in such a short visit.
A month later, the Texas authorities entered the Fundamentalist Mormon conclave in Texas and removed over 400 kids they said were in imminent danger of abuse and under-age marriage. To the extent that any of this is true, and some of it seems to be, this is extremely troubling. No amount of love for children or marriage can ever justify under-age marriage, statutory rape, or forcing a woman to marry against her will, all of which is not only illegal but deeply sinful.
BUT EVER since the Texas raid, I have also found myself on the defensive answering questions from curious friends about Judaism’s approach to polygamy, with many believing that our faith allows the practice. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bible makes it clear that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Cindy and Bonnie. The ideal of monogamy is thus established at the very outset of Creation. Similarly Abraham, the first Jew, has one wife, Sarah, until she pushes him to take another wife since she is barren. Likewise, Isaac is completely monogamous, and Jacob intends to be so as well until he is tricked by his own father-in-law into marrying the wrong woman; which will later necessitate marrying the right one as well.
The only real biblical examples of men with many wives are the Jewish kings, like David and Solomon. When it came to kings, who back in ancient times would usurp whatever women they craved, the Bible sought to impose upon Jewish rulers a respect for women. This was done by allowing them to take women beyond their original wives so long as they married them, which would thereby grant them rights, as opposed to simply being used and discarded. But this was a concession to a virile male nature and never an ideal to be upheld. Monogamy was always the standard to which men were directed.
Later, after biblical times, Rabbeinu Gershom took the monogamous standard and made it law, enacting an edict binding on all European Jewry outlawing polygamy forever. And that has been the Jewish norm for more than 1,000 years.
THERE IS good reason to outlaw polygamy. Marriage is the most romantic institution because it establishes the inviolate uniqueness of its participants. A woman is made to feel that she is the one and only to her husband. A husband’s devotion confers upon his wife the blessings of primacy and exclusivity. But polygamy subverts that pledge, establishing not a woman’s uniqueness, but her ordinariness. Her husband marries her with the express understanding that she alone will not satisfy him. He requires others. She is inadequate.
Likewise, she is forced now to compete for his affections for the rest of her life, thereby immersing her in an unnatural competition for the man who has already pledged himself to her. This competition also erodes the natural, universal sisterhood of women, engaged as they are, even after marriage, in rivalry for the affections of the same man.
In this sense, polygamy leads not to peace and harmony but to altercation and strife. How can any polygamous marriage be happy when, by its very nature, it does not bring people together but drives them apart?
Marriage is the foundation of every civilized society precisely because of its civilizing influences. Marriage takes a man and a woman who are strangers to each other, orchestrates them together into inseparable flesh, and lends children a stable and secure environment within which to be raised.
Polygamy, in contrast, offers children a model not of security but of rivalry, not of confidence but of permanent insecurity, as the members of a single household compete to be favorites. It is a toxic environment in which men are kings and women are courtiers.
After marrying and sacrificing all for her husband, no woman should ever have to feel that she is still not good enough. Likewise, in the Jewish religion no woman can ever be forced to marry a man who is not her choice. As the Bible makes clear in the story of Rebecca’s courtship with Isaac, her family says that we must “ask the maiden” if she wishes to follow Eliezer, the matchmaker, and marry Isaac. Only with her consent can the deed be done.
Every marriage must be based on the exercise of free will to transform a stranger into our one and only.
The writer is the author most recently of The Broken American Male and How to Fix Him.
Of kings and courtiers
——————————————————————————–
Shmuley Boteach , THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 21, 2008
——————————————————————————–
About two months ago, my wife and I visited the Fundamentalist Mormon community of Colorado City, Arizona, the base of imprisoned leader Warren Jeffs. I had always wanted to see for myself how this community lives.
Arriving late in the afternoon, we went to the main supermarket, where tens of fundamentalist Mormons were out buying food with their families. They were understandably suspicious of these intruders and reluctant to engage us in conversation. After a while, the manager of the store came over to us and asked, with considerable warmth, if we had found what we were looking for. He politely confessed that the community was unused to outsiders and hinted that perhaps it was time for us to continue on our journey.
I told him that I was an Orthodox rabbi, that I had, thank God, eight kids, and that it was nice to see so many children in a community. I also told him that I had a long-standing relationship with the Mormon Church, and that I had always wanted to visit the Fundamentalist Mormons as well. He told me that if I was friendly with the official Mormon Church, then no doubt I had a negative view of their community - to which I responded that I tended to make judgments based on my own observations rather than on what I had been told. We spoke a little to some of the young mothers we met, although I could not say whether any of these women were younger than the age of consent.
The people were pleasant, albeit suspicious. They lived lives bereft of any extravagance, and that was about all I could conclude in such a short visit.
A month later, the Texas authorities entered the Fundamentalist Mormon conclave in Texas and removed over 400 kids they said were in imminent danger of abuse and under-age marriage. To the extent that any of this is true, and some of it seems to be, this is extremely troubling. No amount of love for children or marriage can ever justify under-age marriage, statutory rape, or forcing a woman to marry against her will, all of which is not only illegal but deeply sinful.
BUT EVER since the Texas raid, I have also found myself on the defensive answering questions from curious friends about Judaism’s approach to polygamy, with many believing that our faith allows the practice. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Bible makes it clear that God created Adam and Eve, not Adam, Eve, Cindy and Bonnie. The ideal of monogamy is thus established at the very outset of Creation. Similarly Abraham, the first Jew, has one wife, Sarah, until she pushes him to take another wife since she is barren. Likewise, Isaac is completely monogamous, and Jacob intends to be so as well until he is tricked by his own father-in-law into marrying the wrong woman; which will later necessitate marrying the right one as well.
The only real biblical examples of men with many wives are the Jewish kings, like David and Solomon. When it came to kings, who back in ancient times would usurp whatever women they craved, the Bible sought to impose upon Jewish rulers a respect for women. This was done by allowing them to take women beyond their original wives so long as they married them, which would thereby grant them rights, as opposed to simply being used and discarded. But this was a concession to a virile male nature and never an ideal to be upheld. Monogamy was always the standard to which men were directed.
Later, after biblical times, Rabbeinu Gershom took the monogamous standard and made it law, enacting an edict binding on all European Jewry outlawing polygamy forever. And that has been the Jewish norm for more than 1,000 years.
THERE IS good reason to outlaw polygamy. Marriage is the most romantic institution because it establishes the inviolate uniqueness of its participants. A woman is made to feel that she is the one and only to her husband. A husband’s devotion confers upon his wife the blessings of primacy and exclusivity. But polygamy subverts that pledge, establishing not a woman’s uniqueness, but her ordinariness. Her husband marries her with the express understanding that she alone will not satisfy him. He requires others. She is inadequate.
Likewise, she is forced now to compete for his affections for the rest of her life, thereby immersing her in an unnatural competition for the man who has already pledged himself to her. This competition also erodes the natural, universal sisterhood of women, engaged as they are, even after marriage, in rivalry for the affections of the same man.
In this sense, polygamy leads not to peace and harmony but to altercation and strife. How can any polygamous marriage be happy when, by its very nature, it does not bring people together but drives them apart?
Marriage is the foundation of every civilized society precisely because of its civilizing influences. Marriage takes a man and a woman who are strangers to each other, orchestrates them together into inseparable flesh, and lends children a stable and secure environment within which to be raised.
Polygamy, in contrast, offers children a model not of security but of rivalry, not of confidence but of permanent insecurity, as the members of a single household compete to be favorites. It is a toxic environment in which men are kings and women are courtiers.
After marrying and sacrificing all for her husband, no woman should ever have to feel that she is still not good enough. Likewise, in the Jewish religion no woman can ever be forced to marry a man who is not her choice. As the Bible makes clear in the story of Rebecca’s courtship with Isaac, her family says that we must “ask the maiden” if she wishes to follow Eliezer, the matchmaker, and marry Isaac. Only with her consent can the deed be done.
Every marriage must be based on the exercise of free will to transform a stranger into our one and only.
The writer is the author most recently of The Broken American Male and How to Fix Him.
Comment by SkyeBlue — April 23, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Some interesting stuff here. This isn’t an issue between religious rights and plural marriage. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that there is no right to plural marriage based on religious beliefs.
It is illegal. The U.S. settled this long ago and it should remail illegal as it is demeaning to women.
.
Comment by Ashley — April 23, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
re: FLDS raid.
Its about the children. Early this year the Australian Govt apologized for stealing Aborigine children, and placing them in institutions. Now Texas does the same because “mainstream” culture is superior to FLDS? How can it possibly be “better” for these kids to be in the Texas Foster care system than with their Moms? Seems to me that it’s a fair question whether or not the mainstream culture that fills the airwaves with “girls gone wild” videos, and erectile disfunction advertisements, idolizes Paris Hilton, dresses young girls like sluts is “better”. How can it possibly be ok to criminalize over 400 children, take their DNA and fingerprints, toss them into foster care with naught but a false police report as legal justification?
I’m an old woman now, but married at 16. Our children grew up to be strong, thoughtful, kind and happy adults. I very much doubt they would have turned out as well had their childhood been one of bouncing about foster care systems.
There are lots of kinds of families. Whether they be polygamist, single parent, same sex or May/September is far far less important than whether the individuals involved fill their kids lives with love and teach them to care for themselves and for others.
The State has no business stealing babies.
Comment by Betty Jo — April 25, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Did anyone else catch the NPR interviews today? According to the CPS official interviewed, they found something like 20 young women whose first pregnancies had occured between the ages of 13 and 16. If that’s true, then it’s the first real evidence I’ve heard of systemic rather than isolated instances of child brides. I still dislike how Texas handled the raid (could they come up with a more nightmarish approach anymore likely to traumatize the kids forever? Geez. There’s such a thing as moderation, even when removing kids from their homes). Still, this is the first thing I’ve heard which actually suggests the *scope* of the raid may have been truly justified. If anyone else knows further details, please share!
Also the FLDS woman with whom NPR spoke didn’t really help her own case. She first said she had 5 kids–how many were removed in the raid–but as the interview went on it became evident that she had many more who were older. And she said at one point that her daughter had married at 20, then later said her daughter was currently 20, then said she had a 2 year old. I sympathized with her agony, but her clear lying didn’t help her case any.
Sigh. What a stinking mess.
Comment by Janet — April 25, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Does anyone see the irony of the media and Texas authorities being so bothered by underage girls having sex and babies? Or an African American caseworker saying they have to do DNA testing because some of those children don’t know who their fathers are? I abhor polygamy and anything that takes the choice away from a woman to determine her own fate, but how about all the teen pregancies where there’s no father to raise the kids? It’s ok for 14 year olds to have sex and babies as long as they’re not married and are doing every guy in school? How about the fact that 2/3 of all Black kids are born to single mothers?
I hate what goes on at the ranch but for the media to be shocked it quite ridiculous. It’s the religion and the clothes.
I liked the rabbi’s piece, that was very good.
Comment by Martie — April 25, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
are you saying black people can’t be bothered by babies born without knowledge of the father? your comment was quite racist, and whatever -ist it is when you judge an entire state based on the activities of a few.
Comment by chandelle — April 25, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
According to the CPS official interviewed, they found something like 20 young women whose first pregnancies had occured between the ages of 13 and 16.
So says Texas CPS. But according to FLDS attorney Rod Parker, in a story in the Salt Lake Tribune, the number is more like two.
An attorney for FLDS families in Texas today challenged the state’s claim of a pervasive pattern of underage girls having children, saying the state’s own documents show that just two teenagers in custody are pregnant.
Rod Parker, who also acts as a spokesman for the polygamous sect at the YFZ Ranch in Eldorado, said he was basing his statements on a list that was given to him by an unnamed source who said the document was generated by Texas Child Protective Services.
If Texas CPS has the goods, it should immediately substantiate its preliminary assertion. If it doesn’t, it should say so and let those kids go home.
Comment by Sanford — April 25, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
If the FLDS weren’t on a ranch, it would have been much more difficult to justify taking ALL the children. Since the ranch had the appearance of a single household, Texas CPS was able to justify taking all the kids.
I think most of the FLDS women would be willing to leave the ranch if their children would be returned to them. Even though the state has undoubtedly violated constitutional rights of at least some of the FLDS, hopefully this will be a wake-up call that the FLDS need to eliminate the underage marriage crap. There is no doubt that the FLDS have been abusing teenage girls by encouraging underage marriage, depriving them of proper education, and teaching the girls to be completely submissive.
I also hope this serves as a wake-up call to the LDS Church that it’s time to apologize for our polygamous past and reject it completely. I’ve seen estimates that up to ~80% of educated, mainstream Mormons still believe that polygamy is practiced in the afterlife. That’s insane.
Comment by Mudphud — April 25, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
Mudphud, Many FLDS women have asked to have their children back if they leave the ranch, and they have been told no by the state authorities.
It would have been nice if the state could have come up with a “wake-up call” that wasn’t so traumatic and devastating to the children.
I don’t really understand what you mean by this should be a wake-up call to the LDS church. Should we be in danger of losing our children for practices over a century ago that some people still believe will happen in the afterlife?
Comment by Stephanie — April 25, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Chandelle–I’m not racist but I understand that any statement made that seems to disparage the black community will be interpreted, by some, as racist. My comment is that the mostly white media is being hypocritial in its outrage that underage girls are married and pregnant (imagine that! being married–even if plurally–BEFORE getting pregnant) and that for a Black caseworker to be outraged as well is equally hypocritical.
Our family lived in the deep South for 20 years (Louisiana), Toward the end of our stay there, I was RS pres for several years. We had a 30 yr old African American convert. She had three sons, 12, 8, and 3. She’d never been married and the boys had different fathers, none of whom were around. Fortunately, she had been able to graduate from high school. She was smart but had zero common sense. The reasons she gave me for sleeping around were astounding to my white ears and Western Europeean education but made sense to her. One day she came to me very upset. Her 12 year had been at her mother’s and one of her brothers had come to get him without her consent. When she finally located them, they were in a motel room, condoms strewn all over the floor, girls leaving the room. She told me he had had his initiation. “He’s 12,” she said,” it’s the job of the older men to show him and provide the girls for him.” Now, believe me, she was having a heck of a time herself going without sex–I’m not sure she was, in fact. We had many conversations where she brought up various single women in the ward and ask if they really were going without sex and if so how they were doing it. She was upset about what had been done to her son but took it for granted that it would happen sooner or later.
At the same time our bishop was working with a 17 year old black male convert. He was a wonderful, very smart kid, but he lived in the ghetto and had a tough time getting away from his crowd. The bishop said he was visiting with him on his front porch one day, and guys kept driving by and watching them. The bishop asked about it and the young guy said he was being watched because he was talking to a white man but in the course of the conversation he also said that in the African American community, a young man his age was exected to have fathered a child and he hadn’t yet. he said there was a lot of pressure on his to do so.
Now if you want to get hung up that I’m telling this story about cultural expectation in the Black community and call me racist, it’s your choice, But if these expectations exisited in some other ethnic–say swedish blondes with green eyes–community, i’d be pointing out the same thing: namely that Tx or other state authorities don’t descend on black neighborhoods and take away their children–en masse–to put them in foster care.
It’s Saturday and I have to much to do but I could go on and on.
Comment by Martie — April 26, 2008 @ 8:46 am
Comment #144 by Ashley — April 23, 2008 @ 10:31 pm Some interesting stuff here. This isn’t an issue between religious rights and plural marriage. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that there is no right to plural marriage based on religious beliefs.
It is illegal. The U.S. settled this long ago and it should remail illegal as it is demeaning to women.
Well, actually, no. Ask just about any legal scholar about the historic anti-polygamy Supreme Court case, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), and you will see that it’s arguments were some of the most flim-flam stupid ever to come out of that court, including using premises and examples which were just plain false. The issue of polygamy, if ever tried in the Supreme Court again, would, at worst, be given the same dubious legal status as homosexual marriage.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 26, 2008 @ 10:28 am
Stephanie, I’m aware that some of the women said they would leave the ranch. I don’t believe their children have been taken away permanently. That’s not the way the system works. Many of the FLDS have been lying about their ages and their relationships, and it takes time for the authorities to figure everything out.
The LDS Church has never apologized for polygamy. It was an abusive practice. Joseph Smith married a 14 y.o. girl, which was extremely young even for the 19th century. Polygamy began as an adulterous relationship between Joseph and 16 y.o. Fanny Alger who was working in the Smith home in 1833. Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated because he also spoke up about this. Joseph Smith sent married men on missions and then chased their wives while the men were away. These issues are not controversial among objective historians.
My grandmother grew up in a polygamous household, and she thought the entire situation was horribly abusive. These women didn’t want to be practicing polygamy, but they were told that it was necessary if they were to receive exaltation. It was a load of crap.
Have you read D&C 132 lately? Do you realize that the D&C contained canonized scripture claming that Mormons do not practice polygamy until that scripture was removed in 1852, even though Joseph Smith had been practicing polygamy since 1833?
It should be a wake-up call for the LDS Church because the vast majority of Mormons still believe that polygamy was inspired, and most also believe that polygamy will be practiced in the hereafter.
The FLDS do not deserve to be defended. They have been coercing 14 year old girls into polygamous marriages. They are depriving their women of education and freedom.
Emma knew that polygamy was not inspired, and that’s why Emma fought back. And this is how Joseph responded in D&C 132:
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
…
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
These are harmful beliefs, even if they are not currently in practice. I never said anything about LDS having their children taken away, so I don’t know where you got that idea. I’m saying that the Church needs to clarify its positions and eliminate this part of the scripture–the same scripture that the FLDS use to justify their polygamy. If the LDS Church could amend the D&C in 1852 to remove the claim that Mormons DON’T practice polygamy (almost 20 years after they started practicing polygamy), why can’t they amend the D&C to get rid of these ridiculous verses?
Comment by Mudphud — April 26, 2008 @ 10:40 am
Once upon a time, before Iraq, our Government went to Afganistan.
They said, “Oh my God, girl children there are not allowed
to be educated! They are married very young! Women are not allowed to work outside the home! We need to modernize this culture,to help these women”.
Well, that all sounded pretty good. I am a feminist too. Women
should not be chattle.
Now of course, our “War on Drugs” has merged with our “War on Terror”. We burn the opium fields, leaving the poor farmers with no options other than to sell their young daughters to pay their Opium planting debts to the drug lords. (see Newsweek April 9 2008).
Darn. So sad about the poor 10 year old Afgan girls who are sold to old drug lords in Afganistan… Unfortunate that we’re paying Sunnis in Iraq not to kill us, so we can’t afford to
subsidize those poor Afgan farmers to grow something else.
Guess the young girls aren’t that important after all….
Seems to me that our Government is so busy asserting that “marriage must be between one man and one woman,” that they have totally lost sight of the children.
“First do no harm” should be the mantra of all Child Protective Services. Whether one, or two or even twenty girls were
married young in the FLDS church cannot justify what has been done to over 400 children.
The only possible explanation is that the Texas Crusaders presume that growing up in polygamist households is, by definition, child abuse SO BAD that life in foster care is better….
Wonder what the response would be if Child Protective Services removed Vice President Cheney’s grandchild to foster care because her parents are in a same sex relationship.
The lesson here is be careful what you wish for, and be VERY careful before you presume that any government bureaucracy can do a better job of defining morality than a family.
Comment by Betty Jo — April 26, 2008 @ 10:56 am
Mudphud:
What the LDS does with its scriptures today will not affect the beliefs of the FLDS one iota.
What you have historians describing with Joseph Smith is even contrary to the verses mentioned, so it would hardly change the abusive practices seen today. The historical narrative of the “ridiculous” abuses of Joseph Smith differs from what is described in the D&C: “desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent“, “..vowed to no other man. etc.
The official ban on polygamy serves the desired purpose for the LDS today.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 26, 2008 @ 11:03 am
“why can’t they amend the D&C to get rid of these ridiculous verses?”
And while they are at it, edit-out the examples from Solomon, David, Jacob, et al. ?
I certainly have no desire to practice polygamy or be a part of it in any way, but from my experience talking with and reading about some of its practitioners, I do tend to believe that there are many people out there who are quite happy practicing it, women included. And it’s a lifestyle choice for some, not all abuse and agony like some people want to paint it to be. This is also not a denial that there are also many examples of outright abuse to be shamefully exposed and stopped.
Comment by Kelton Baker — April 26, 2008 @ 11:10 am
So this phrase: “desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent“, “..vowed to no other man.” makes everything else OK? I don’t think so.
I don’t think Emma gave her consent, but that’s beside the point.
My main point is that the beliefs themselves are harmful even if they are not currently in practice. That’s my opinion.
As an analogy: The ban on blacks holding the priesthood was a racist policy, and justifying the ban is harmful even though the ban is no longer in effect. The same applies when Mormons justify polygamy. Polygamy as practiced by 19th century Mormons was an abusive practice. It does not deserve to be defended or justified. Teaching women and children that they must practice polygamy to be exalted is abusive brainwashing, and that’s what women were taught in 19th century Mormonism.
Comment by Mudphud — April 26, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Mudphud, I agree with you on polygamy and the interpretation in D&C 132 (I’ve made that point on other threads). I guess I don’t agree that an event should serve as a “wake-up call” to the church. If we truly believe that Christ is at the helm, then He will issue apologies and ammendments to scripture on His own timetable if He sees fit.
Comment by Stephanie — April 26, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
re: comment 150 Mudphud wrote:
“I also hope this serves as a wake-up call to the LDS Church that it’s time to apologize for our polygamous past and reject it completely. I’ve seen estimates that up to ~80% of educated, mainstream Mormons still believe that polygamy is practiced in the afterlife. That’s insane.”
Apologize for our polygamist past? Hmmm. Could be that old Joe didn’t even believe himself that ALL his revelations were gifts straight from God. I expect sometimes he figured that since the gift of imagination came from there, that was maybe close enough. Heck, If I had to apologize for every flight of fancy my imagination took wing on I’d have no time for aught else. No sense crying over spilt milk.
And, while I’m at it, Why worry about polygamy in the afterlife? The afterlife is NOT OUR JOB.
The Jehovah’s Witness ladies came out again today. I can hear them say to themselves: “What better way to spend the Lord’s day than taking a nice drive in the glorious spring countryside after church.”
I totally understand.
They always start their missionary speil the same way…”A lot of people think we are in THE LAST DAYS.
Do you worry about that?” Then, with just a hint of drama in their voices they add, “Do you think ARMAGEDON is near?”
I reply, “Nope. I dont worry about that. It’s not my job.”
I say that what I KNOW is that my LAST DAY on Earth will be the day I take my last breath.
I figure that MY JOB is to honor THIS gift of life by loving my family, respecting my neighbors, contributing to my community and being a good steward of the land entrusted to me.
What happens in the afterlife is God’s job, not ours. He doesn’t need our help managing Heaven.
For Pete’s sake, if he can make a world as wonderous as this one in the physical sphere, how hard can it be for him to manage a spiritual one like Heaven especially when everyone there is, by definition, “Good”. Might be different if he were the guy trying to manage the cellar where all the BAD apples go.
Don’t worry about celestial polygamy or it’s absence. It’s not our job to imagine Heaven. You can trust God to that.
Comment by Betty Jo — April 26, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Betty Jo, I love your post! Thank you.
Comment by Quimby — April 26, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
[…] Feminist Mormon Housewives in “Polygamy is Illegal“, where there are a TON of comments: “When you are twelve years old, your father […]
Pingback by Mormonism, Las Vegas, Allies, and Others : Elaine Vigneault — April 28, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
The Bible is very clear on the subject of marraiges lasting for eternity, in Jesus’s OWN words it is quoted:
“You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power or God. “For in the Resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but like angels in heaven.”
Matthew 22:29-30
Comment by SkyeBlue — April 28, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
I had no idea there was such a thing as a “feminist Mormon housewife” !!!
I’ll dance a little jig now.
Peace!
Comment by Heather Bartlett — May 29, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
The Bible states that marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything but that according to the Bible is considered sin regardless of whether it is illegal in the U.S. or not.
Think of Solomon and his many wives. They eventually turned him away from serving God and he started serving idols. In most if not all states an adult having sex with a minor is against the law period. Who knows what happened to that 16 year old girl. For all we know she could be in hiding or dead.
Comment by Justin — May 29, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
Big Love aside, can a true feminist really believe in LDS docterine? What do you think about this:
Nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy the teaching that priesthood-authority males have a literal God-appointed right to enter their most fundamental thoughts, desires and choices.
From childhood, the LDS female is thoroughly trained to be, in behavior and thought, submissive to a long and imposing list of males with authority linking directly to God Himself. This list, proceeding from the least authority upward, includes but is not limited to these several dozens:
• her husband,
• her three bishopric males,
• her two home-teacher males,
• her three stake presidency males,
• Quorum of the Seventy males,
• Presiding Bishopric males,
• Church Patriarch (a male),
• Assistants to the Twelve Apostles,
• Quorum of Twelve (male) Apostles,
• First Presidency (who are three additional male Apostles).
She learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband. She is totally dependent upon her husband because:
• Her husband will lead her by hand “through the veil” to celestial existence,
• Her role in heaven will be to continue forever bearing offspring for him as one of his wives.
• She knows there is no approved escape from this God-decreed, interminable destiny for females, because it is the system that existed for gods in pre-existent worlds prior to this earth, and will exist without end in the future for her, her husband-god and vast numbers of other gods.
I have heard the line “a woman doesn’t need the priesthood because she can conceive and bear children” stated so many times I am considering a bumper sticker bearing it. My question is this: can she conceive alone or does that, as well, require a man? If so, is there any measure of godesshood/priestesshood that can be achieved without a man? Single LDS male can have the priesthood, what about single females? How does an empowered female deal with that kind of second class relegation? I’m just curious.
Comment by PapaKrok — December 7, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
BTW
Joseph Smith married his second wife in 1833, and his current EC didn’t have a clue at the time. He married the rest, near thirty by some counts, betweem 1841 and 1844. Of the thirty, nine were married to living men at the time. Polyandy anyone?
Polygamy was pronounced in 1852 and still stands as constituted in the D&C.
As to polygamy being due to a shortage of men:
The Utah Historical Society includes population statistics in their library. The source for these statistics is the United States Bureau of Census.
Utah population:
1850 total 11,380 male 6,046 female 5,334
1860 total 40,273 male 20,255 female 20,018
1870 total 86,786 male 44,121 female 42,665
1880 total 143,963 male 74,509 female 68,454
1890 total 210,779 male 111,975 female 98,804
1900 total 276,749 male 141,687 female 135,062
Comment by PapaKrok — December 7, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
papakrok,
Not going to spend too long writing out a response, but I’ll start with the fact that the title of the blog is supposed to be a bit ironic, and it’s not all as necessarily oppressive as you incline.
As another point, men ALSO can’t achieve highest exaltation without being married to a female. There’s equivalency there, if nothing else, and the following comments you give on the matter are also suspect.
Also, women are HARDLY expected to be submissive to all priesthood figures. Priesthood authority is used primarily for the powers of the keys of the priesthood, women retain dominion over themselves and their home (and whatever else they otherwise have command over.)
Most laughably I find your comment that she should be submissive to her home teachers. That is such an incredibly… no. Just no. I have hometeachers and am a hometeacher, that’s just not how it works.
Which isn’t to say that common mormon culture doesn’t tend to support your entire post there, but plenty of counterexamples exist. My own long list of female relations I could name for one.
The entire church is designed around a partnership between men and women. Though I do wonder if someday women will also have the priesthood, as blacks eventually did. Priesthood authority or not though, celestial glory is treated the same for either side.
(except perhaps the sealings issue, but we’ll see how that works out.)
Comment by D.C. — January 6, 2010 @ 8:18 am