The raid in Texas is interesting (and differs from AZ and UT prosecutorial efforts) in that polygamy is being attacked directly. So, will this shift in approach result in the end of polygamy (again)?
The underlying assumption in taking 400 children out of their homes is that the lifestyle itself is harmful; invading the temple is a direct challenge to the FLDS religion’s legitimacy. The total absence of ACLU intervention further indicates that there is no legal basis for protection and that national sympathy is lacking due to illegal polygamous behavior. If the FLDS women are viewed as victims, it is as complicit victims. As Alice Walker put it Possessing the Secret of Joy (her book about female genital mutilation), “One tree said to another: I have seen the axe, and the handle is one of us.”
The responses to the raid have varied greatly. There are articles praising TX for its bold action to safeguard women and children from a dangerous patriarchal and insular cult. There are sympathetic posts by LDS who view this action as the Extermination Order II. There are critics of the LDS who condemn any lack of sympathy on our part as being hypocritical. There are women of the FLDS baffled as to why they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, their children taken from them, and their rights stripped. I would like to explore the shift in approach TX has made, the legal and pragmatic implications of that, and the possible outcomes.
Growing up in the northeast (raised LDS), I had no idea that polygamy was still being practiced by anyone in the US. I had assured my inquisitive high school friends that it had been done away with almost a hundred years ago. I was truly shocked to find otherwise when I attended BYU. My parents are converts, so we have no polygamous ancestry. The first time I heard the term “polyg,” I thought it was an architectural style (”polyg houses”). During my first temple recommend interview I had to ask what a “splinter group” was because I had no idea that (aside from the RLDS) there were other groups that had split from LDS. The idea that anyone would voluntarily practice polygamy if there was any way out of it (e.g. the Official Declaration and it being made illegal) was beyond my comprehension. My own teenage contemplation of polygamy really went no farther than to wonder whether it was something I could have lived if asked like some of those early church women, a safe enough exercise at a distance of a hundred years. It was unpalatable, but as theoretical as other unpalatable things like eating a live cockroach or breast feeding.
Although I was initially outraged and chagrined that UT did not more actively prosecute polygamists who are clearly flouting the law, I gained a lot of respect over time for the pragmatic approach UT and AZ have taken. Texas’ action, while bold, seems excessive; taking over 400 children from their mothers over one anonymous complaint of abuse is overreaching. As a contrast, there are recurring complaints of domestic abuse in some urban low income communities, but they don’t come in and take away all the children in all the neighboring apartments. And they would probably find a lot more abuse if they did. It seems that people’s rights have been trampled and the innocent are being treated without much concern in a “guilty until proven innocent” approach. The incident in Texas has been handled differently for several reasons:
- Texas’ experience with polygamous sects is limited and recent whereas AZ and UT have had long-standing experience with polygamous sects.
- One word: Waco.
- Everything’s bigger in Texas.
- Some have suggested that Baptist sentiment is a force in this raid (at least at whipping everyone into a frenzy).
- Some have suggested that an evangelical political plot is at play by casting the FLDS into the media at critical points in Mitt Romney’s political bid (either for POTUS or VP) to discredit him by a continual reminder that he descends from polygamists and is therefore too weird to hold such high office.
Having said all that, I would not shed a single tear if the end of polygamy is the outcome of this action. I am thrilled polygamy was ended by the LDS in 1890. And a religion (like FLDS) that encourages illegal behavior is inherently harmful if for no other reason than it creates a society of isolation and secrecy. This type of secrecy can be directly harmful (creating an environment in which lying supersedes the truth), but secrecy is also indirectly harmful in that abuse can flourish in an isolated environment.
I acknowledge that there are issues wih prosecuting polygamy that make it difficult because consensual polygamous marriages are not legal; therefore, being in a polygamous marriage is not illegal because you’re only married to one person legally. It’s not illegal in this country to have consensual unmarried sex and children with many partners. It’s called “hooking up,” and it’s quite popular (throw in a tramp stamp and a hairdo, and these women would not be getting hauled off in Baptist school buses). So, prosecution usually focuses on:
1 - statutory rape
2 - abuse
3 - welfare fraud
Obviously, statutory rape and abuse usually require a complainant, difficult to obtain in most cases, but even moreso in a secretive group already wary of outsiders where patriarchal authority is unquestioned. Welfare fraud feels a bit like nabbing Al Capone for postal fraud. And it may fall into the “bigger fish to fry” category for pragmatic reasons.
So, what can be done? If I were running the world, here are a few radical changes I would suggest (speaking of overreaching):
1 - raise the legal marriage age to 18 nationally, no exceptions. 18 is still too young if you ask me. If I had to live with choices I made at 18 . . . well, I’m just glad I do not.
2 - eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).
And lastly, if this does mean the end of polygamy (because it is being attacked directly for the first time), take the following steps:
1 - grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships. This requires ongoing monitoring, but if you’re going to take down polygamy, it’s the only way. Otherwise, TX has to follow the AZ and UT lead and only prosecute what can be prosecuted directly. Placing all the children into foster care seems unduly harsh; if the mothers were given a way to retain their children, even if it meant giving up their (sort of) illegal religious practice, many would comply.
2 - research and prosecute for every instance of abuse, statutory rape, and welfare fraud. Go after these things with a vengeance until they are completely eliminated.
So, do you believe Texas has overreached? And will Texas take it to the mattresses or not? Does this mean the end of polygamy (again, once and for all)? Or will TX back off and follow the lead of AZ & UT, only prosecuting what is feasible? Will the ACLU ever intervene? And if the end of polygamy occurs, can we “re-patriate” this splinter group into mainstream America? Will they ultimately renounce Jeffs as a false prophet, leave the FLDS, and join the LDS? Would they choose their children over their lifestyle if presented with that alternative?
Well, it has taken 10% of the child welfare workers in Texas on this case. I’m conflicted as the local hospital delivers lots of babies to kids as young as nine years old. Baby daddies all over the place and nothing being done about it at all. When I compare the FLDS to the hook-ups and the baby daddies they don’t look so bad. I’m not overly fond of the threatening that Peggy Slack got from the police while reporting on the story.
On the other hand, atavistically I find myself disliking the FLDS and what they do to the young men they expend as surplus, on top of everything else.
BTW, for an ACLU blogger on the topic:
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-law-blawggers-need-to-weigh-in-on.html
Hawkgrrl, I’ve got very mixed feelings about all this, but frankly it all boils down to the very simple fact that I don’t really care that much for the concept of abusive polygamy. (Abusive being the key word here–if it turns out that polygamy in its very nature is abusive, then I’m going to obviously concede that it has got to go, but I’m going to guess that in certain conditions it can be practiced in a non-abusive fashion. These settings are likely quite rare and probably cannot exist in any modern westernized culture.)
I will take issue with one thing you’ve said, and that’s the restriction of home-schooling. I understand what you are getting at, but frankly the unintended consequences of that particular step are rather unpleasant. As a parent that considered home-schooling very carefully (and ultimately we decided against it for a variety of reasons), I’d have to say that the freedom to home school a child is very important. Even more important is the freedom to place a child in a private school (which FLDS communities could easily develop in lieu of home schooling if that were banned). If it becomes mandatory for all children to attend public schools, then we become dependent on the government entirely for whatever view of the world they wish our children to have. Because regardless of how you like to think of it, there are is a whole range of attitudes and beliefs that are taught at public schools in addition to the bare facts, many of which are blatantly contrary to what I would like my children to learn. Unfortunately. At this point we have enough young children that we simply cannot home school appropriately (that is, it wouldn’t happen), but I think at some point we might go that route. Why? Because I think we can teach more, at a more appropriate pace, in a shorter span, in certain subjects than the public schools can. And we can probably allow the children to pursue a wider variety of interests than the public schools. But right now we simply don’t have the resources or time. When that changes, we’ll do home schooling. But to restrict a parents rights and a child’s opportunity because of some mistakes on the part of others is a terrible idea.
Freedom, fundamentally, comes at the cost of difficulty. That is, if we accept that we allow greater freedoms for everyone, we also accept that we must be on greater watch for the abuse of those freedoms, but we should never actually restrict the freedom itself. That’s a consequence of the concept of agency (and I am a strong believer in the concept of agency and in the concept of obedience, and I see no contradiction) is that we must allow people the opportunity to use that agency to do good or evil, and then when evil is chosen, we must protect others from that evil by separating out those who perpetrate that evil and either isolating them from society or seeking to reform them somehow. This is why I think that prison life should not only be difficult, but it should teach useful job skills, and should talk about philosophy and offer various religious services, so that those who are willing to repent may do so.
In the case of the FLDS, I suspect that many of the women have long wished they could avoid polygamy but have seen no way out. Others, however, probably truly believe that it is the right thing to do. This is probably going to go down in history as one of the most difficult things to decide regarding religion in American Religious History. Not whether or not the Book of Mormon came from gold plates. That will always be an interesting but ultimately relatively inconsequential debate. Polygamy, however, is going to be a battle, if only because there are some women who seem to support it, and seem to want to convince other women–including their own daughters–to join the lifestyle. We can only call it abusive now because of the ages involved, but I guarantee that if there were no pre-18 brides involved, it would be a lot harder to look at it and call it abusive. You might get some, but not nearly as many.
Sorry again for the monster-length post, and for the rambling.
Some of these mothers were never teenage mothers; some of them have kids who all are under 10. Those women have never been victims of statutory rape, and neither have their kids. They have been targeted for what they MIGHT do - what MIGHT happen to the kids. That is beyond scary, no matter what you think of the overall group.
It is hyper-hypocritical. SOME undesirables are being prosecuted for things that others are not, simply because the political backlash of raiding inner-city high schools would destroy the Texas CPS. I’ve worked in those inner-cities, and the situation is not better than the FLDS. Hypocrites, plain and simple, and transparent religious discrimination - since they aren’t targeting anyone else as a group.
It seems that TX and AR and UT have very different views of the enforcement of the purported abuse that has gone on. It appears that AR and UT have turned a blind eye to the situation while convincing themselves of the good things coming from these arrangements.
But, I have to tell you, seeing these women on TV pleading for their children’s return did not show them in the best light. First of all, they looked weird (like a lot of inner breeding has gone on), talked like robots and refused to answer questions that may have pointed to the kind of under-age marrying and abuse that is being alleged.
I have seen some documentaries on polygamy showing non-FLDS situations and, for the most part, the women came off as intelligent, and very aware of the situation they volunteered for. i am sure that not all the situations are that positive, but at least these women seem to have a choice.
The women of the FLDS I saw did not appear this way at all.
hawkgrrl said: “So, what can be done? If I were running the world, here are a few radical changes I would suggest (speaking of overreaching)”
The word you are searching for is “fascism”. The Nazi-like “changes” you suggest are no different than the tactics used by the State of Texas in going into the YFZ Ranch on an unsubstantiated, unverified, anonymous phone call.
Do you seriously want to restrict home schooling? One could make the argument that home schooling is an aspect of freedom of religion. Once home schooling is eliminated, Family Home Evening will be next. But I suppose radical Mosques in this country are OK.
We are reaping harvest grown from the seeds of polygamy sown by Joseph Smith.
…taking over 400 children from their mothers over one anonymous complaint of abuse is overreaching.
It was my understanding that TX has been investigating the FLDS group for years and that the call was the final nod they needed to gain permission to enter the compound.
2 - eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).
I fail to see how this would solve the problem. Many people home school for reasons other than religion and fear of society (i.e. deficient public schools). It would be silly to punish them as well. I’m with you on the oversight though, I think home schooled kids should be showing progress toward being productive citizens and if not they should attend public schools.
1 - grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships.
That would be very hard indeed. How do you tell polygamous families they can’t live together but others that “hook up” can. It just wouldn’t work.
…if the mothers were given a way to retain their children, even if it meant giving up their (sort of) illegal religious practice, many would comply.
My guess is most of them would just run across the boarder first chance they got and set up their polygamous compound in Mexico. It is not that easy to give up something you have been taught to believe your whole life. Your conscience would be eating at you something terrible because you’d feel like you were going against God (even if you weren’t).
Hawkgrrl, way out of line with outlawing home schooling. You sound like a liberal fascist, the kind that are trying to do away with home school in California. I don’t like most home schooling, but people should have the freedom to do so.
To us all, I don’t understand how we can be as vitriolic as we are towards polygamy. There is little difference between Warren Jeffs circa 2008 and Joseph Smith circa 1844. Live and let live. Let them practice their religion. You don’t have to legally condone it, but we have anti-adultery laws on the books and they’re rarely enforced saved for divorce civil proceedings. The fact that MY religion condoned polygamy at one time means that I have to understand it as appropriate as SOME time. It may be appropriate in the future yet again. A careful reading of Isaiah 4 suggests this:
“1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. 2 In that day shall the abranch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel.”
Maybe that was already fulfilled with JS and BY but it may be a future promise as well. I just recently told my wife that if we had to live polygamy, I would take additional sweet spirits AND only if I was asked by my bishop to do so.
I do have one tiny request of my FLDS brothers down here in Southern Utah. You can also CHOOSE not to have polygamy and be saved. Really, you can. It’s not necessary. I know you think Brigham Young says we all have to, but its just not true. Many of the early saints were not polygamists. The only ones condemned were those who were asked to enter the order and didn’t. So get off your high horse about it. I’m more impressed if you can live consecration, live IN the world, and help your fellow man, not wear Mormon burquas and separate yourself. Where are your missionary efforts? You’re more like Hassidic Jews than Christians who love you fellow man
Oh, and one more thing: Quit marrying underage girls. You want to protect your way of life, just keep that one little tiny rule, and all the bad police go away. It’s not a big deal, you can still be a Fundie and have tons of wives, they’re just all legal age. Have your own little age-appropriate Manifesto. Manifesto’s work; they get Big Brother off your back.
I have a question for you all. Are you for gay marriage? This is really a rhetorical answer. I’m not meaning to bring gay marriage to this debate, yet again, because the two cases (polygamy and gay marriage) are widely divergent and only remain similar in that they are out of the mainstream of monogamy, but in the case of those of you that are sympathetic to the rainbow cause, I hope you’re consistent with the pettiskirts and unfinished-framed house cause as well.
Polygamy will never end. It’s as eternal as prostitution, taxes, bad breath, and horse farms in Kentucky. It will always be alive somewhere, and I don’t think it really hurts society all that much.
Yeah, I was schizophrenic in this reponse. I apologize.
The bottom line is, this was institutionalized pedophilia, not just abusive polygamy, and the government had to step in. If this were ten consenting adults having a “marriage,” it would be an entirely different issue. The government has a responsibility to step in and stop this practice. The issue with LDS polygamy in the late 19th century is apples and oranges compared to institutional pedophilia. You cannot compare these two at all.
Further regulation of homeschoolers would be throwing out the baby with the bath water or doing exactly what the TX people are being criticized for doing with the FLDS. Homeschooling is highly regulated in almost every state. What, where and how children are taught (presuming there is no abuse) is both the responsibillity and the privilage of parents. For a variety of reasons, my oldest daughter has chosen to homeschool her three boys. It has nothing to do with religion. One of them has a disability which simply cannot be addressed adequately by the public school system where they live, but he is thriving and learning as a homeschooler.
On a personal level, I am ADAMANTLY opposed to polygamy. I am an active member of the LDS Church, but I don’t believe that polygamy is or ever was an inspired practice. With that said, however, I don’t believe we have the right to tell others how to live their personal lives (assuming, again, that there is no abuse). If five women want to live with one man, and he is caring for them and their children, why should the rest of us get involved? Simply because the practice is abhorent to us does not mean we have the right to intervene. There are all kinds of things that we may not approve of that go on behind closed doors, but that doesn’t mean they should all be illegal.
On the home schooling, I definitely would restrict it and put it under more strict guidelines, even for Amish (not forcing them to mainstream schools, though). I realize that’s taking away a “freedom” that exists today, but it is a freedom I feel requires more governance than it has today. Consensual polygamy is a “freedom” TX wants to take away. Not all freedoms are used judiciously by all citizens; hence my view it should have more oversight. All I can say is, don’t vote for me. I grant you my view is somewhat fascist on this topic, although I am no liberal generally speaking.
I believe gays should have access to the rights afforded as civil unions. I am generally a social libertarian. I would not vote for a ban on gay marriage nor would I vote to allow gay marriage. The difference here is the polygamous lifestyle is viewed (at least by TX) as inherently harmful, inhibiting choice, putting children in an environment in which patriarchal authority is unquestioned and abuse goes unreported. The same is not true of gay unions in general. Gays are not a cult (sorry to throw the “c” word out there; I guess the gloves are off now).
If FLDS is a cult, does that mean early Mormonism was a cult? Differences I see are pretty critical: early Mormonism was always a missionary church (not insular), there was a quorum of 12 apostles (not just one man making the unquestionable law for all–even if JS was the top dog, it’s a little more like the Amish council of elders), it was quite easy to leave the church (they left people behind at every stop), only some were asked to live polygamy which was voluntary (if 100% of FLDS are polygamous, is it voluntary?).
Ray - I am interested in your comment that this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
CatherineWO - sorry, I was typing that at the same time you wrote yours. Your homeschooling example is a great illustration of when homeschooling may be a good choice. The latest efforts to mainstream students whose disabilities make it difficult for them to learn or cope have had very mixed results. So, I’m glad there is (at least in some cases) better support and oversight. If the support and oversight is adequate and there is a compelling reason to homeschool, that’s a valid exception. Homeschooling to isolate kids from the world doesn’t seem like a good plan to me, and restricting their access to different viewpoints or teaching methods should be a last resort if no other barriers exist. Restricting it further might help reduce the stranglehold control that cults have over children.
Seems to me you have colonies in states where the civil laws are clearly and wantonly being broken. Action is required even if it places hardships on the government systems and even if it means, in the investigative portion, that the innocent are caught in the same net. And I use “innocent” knowing that even those who may not have participated directly have given their consent to illegal practices and protected it by their participation in the illegal culture.
I don’t have expectations that many lives will be set right by the actions of TX but I don’t fault TX for that. The damage was done by the polygamous sub-cultures. What TX can do — what UT and AZ could also do but are failing to — is wipe out this illegal and destructive way of life.
Girls of 16 who already have babies is clear evidence of statutory rape. There are horrendous stories of punitive measures applied preemptively to babies to assure compliance. Serious birth defects caused by inbreeding are also sufficient examples of the crimes against laws and nature that are taking place in the name of religion.
Polygamy is and always was an outrage, a disgrace and a perversion. And the position of the LDS would be more clear and more aggressive if their embarrassment over the introduction of the practice didn’t come from the fact that it was introduced to the United States by the very LDS leadership. Nevertheless, the past is the past and allowing the abuses and consequences to continue out of false pride is unacceptable on every level.
The calls of allegation were a hoax. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has become a target of Anonymous! The hoax is intended not only to bring down false religion, but to place the government in a compromised position.
On the matter of polygamy being the target rather than abuse in Texas:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4670370&page=2
The criminal prosecutions are going to be based on polygamy and not abuse.
I might agree with this tactic as a clever attempt to fork the FLDS, and force them to delay polygamous marriages to age 18:
Either the men say they are married to the 16 year olds, thus opening them to a charge of bigamy.
Or the men deny a legal marriage and are charged with statutory rape.
Clever, but dangerous, particularly since they used abuse as the excuse to enter the compound. If the FLDS men are smart they will own up to marrying these girls and challenge the state of Texas to bring bigamy charges. Then there will be an actual showdown over the legitimacy of the laws against bigamy. (Besides, better to go to jail for bigamy than for rape).
Now I expect that the bigamy laws will be upheld, but there will be alot of grief about the manner in which the evidence was gathered.
That is what disturbs me the most about the above quote:
This is exactly why the FLDS men and women are so reluctant to talk to the press, and this strikes me as an attempt to intimidate the men and women of the FLDS into silence.
Even threaten them with not being able to show up in court and challenge the states case because to do so would incriminate themselves under the bigamy statute. This seems a very highhanded way to essentially steal children away from families with a religion people don’t like.
As for the suggested changes you argue for, particularly the restrictions on homeschooling.
I think the point Kate made about the Canadian Human Rights Commision has great validity and pertinence:
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/008477.html
Alice, be VERY careful of sweeping generalities.
“Polygamy is and always was an outrage, a disgrace and a perversion.”
I don’t agree with polygamy in our society, but are you really ready to make this charge against ALL polygamists throughout history? Are you Christian or Jewish? Do you accept the practice by those the Bible sees as prophets?
The Bible goes back to the very earliest point of recorded human history. As such, it tells us about events that took place before cultures were organized into what we call civilization. If prophets practiced polygamy it was abandoned by the time Jesus was born. What’s more, in every civilization there are things done because they *can* be done by the powerful, callous and aggressive not because they *should* be done.
Civilization is a move to what is best for the whole culture and protects the rights of the vulnerable. It was the remedy to rapacious behavior of a class with power. I have *no* wish to move backward to the tyranny of the more powerful that we can see exercised by war lords in the Middle East and Africa. I see little difference in the polygamous cultures of the Southwest.
Pervious attempts to disband them were abandoned when they were painful. I see no reason to follow that impotent course when allowing them to continue is a sure course of generations more of subjugation of women, children and vulnerable young boys in addition to the exploitation of US society that pays for the existence of these places in welfare and tax dollars.
Do not confuse devotion with using religion as a weapon or a tool. And do not confuse shared guilt over the early teachings of LDS with an excuse for permitting this repulsive and abusive practice to continue.
Great post Hawgrrrl…I am glad someone blogged about it.
I agree with you that if children are being abused then something needs to be done.
I differ with you on your opinion about home schooling.
Cheers
“If prophets practiced polygamy it was abandoned by the time Jesus was born.”
This is not true.
Polygamy was practice among the Jews in Jesus’ time.
I don’t remember a single New Testament story about Jesus ministering to a polygamous group.
In any case, it did not appear in the United States until it was introduced by Joseph Smith and his followers.
Alice,
I don’t think Jesus talked about coffee and tea, either.
No. He didn’t. And he didn’t talk about computers, tractors or frozen foods.
Shall we speculate on his positions on those? Or shall we stick to the topic of old men using young women’s vulnerability and using scriptures to violate them and keep them in lives of subjugation?
Alice, nobody is defending child abuse and statutory rape. The main concern is the way that Texas has gone about it.
Just to be crystal clear: Since 16-year-old girls with children is a clear sign of statutory rape (with which I agree, in general), are you willing to allow the state to remove EVERY child of EVERY 16-year-old mother? Are you at the very least willing to allow the state to remove EVERY child in an entire neighborhood where 16-year-old mothers are common?
even the children of mothers who obviously were NOT teenagers when their children were born?
I have ZERO difficulty with the state of TX rooting it out. Let us stipulate that that entire community of people were born into a life of servitude and bondage with the exception of a few autocratic men who ruled it. I have no illusions that the State of TX can rehabilitate all those lives. But they can stop the possibility of it being replicated for generations to come. And it’s possible that a few lives *can* be rehabilitated — a possibility few are acknowledging. Meanwhile, I don’t think they could make them any worse.
Carolyn Jessop is an example of the fact that it is possible to break the cycle. And she is a witness to why it’s a goal to pursue. Here is her account of how docile personalities were assured:
“Everything you did was monitored and controlled and everybody reported on everyone else,” she said. “It was a police state. You were not allowed to make decisions in your life. I had no power over my life or the lives of my children. It was a terrible way to live.”
“The method he would use with infants [to ensure docility] was a form of water torture,” Jessop said of her former husband. “He would spank the baby until it was screaming out of control, and then he would hold the baby faceup under a tap of running water so it couldn’t breathe. He would do this repeatedly. Sometimes, it would go on for an hour, until the baby was so exhausted it couldn’t cry anymore. This method he called ‘breaking them.’”
If that doesn’t chill you then look into the vacant eyes of any one of those mothers who are crying for their children now and tell me they would or could protect them from abuse.
Alice, If those practices were used, you bet the abusers should be prosecuted and sentenced to life in solitary confinement. However, that’s not what the official explanation has been thus far. Until that charge is made, I can’t support removing the children (even the boys) for concern of potential statutory rape - which is what we have been given thus far. What I am saying is that it shouldn’t be ok to do whatever you want to do, constitutional protections be damned.
Also, you didn’t answer my question. Please re-read comments #24 and #25 and answer the actual questions I asked. What is the mothers and children are not living in a polygamous community? Are you STILL willing to allow the state to do what it is doing here? There are LOTS of neighborhoods in this country where pregnancy among teenagers is rampant - where girls have 4-5 kids by the time they are 20, with 4-5 different fathers. The illegitimacy rate in some inner-city areas is reaching or has passed 80%. Are you willing to allow the state to do there what it is doing here - removing ALL children no matter what to keep them from being abused and impregnated later?
Tell you what, if they (not so certain who “they” is since the TX authorities have standing only within TX) went to individual homes and did the same thing where there was reason to believe they would eventually be able to identify the abused and the abusers, I’d support them in that too. But you tell me where their effort is more likely to have the greatest return and impact. And I’ll tell you what I think of officials in UT and AZ who are still turning a blind eye to the same abuses within their borders.
Meanwhile, instead of nipping at the heels of law enforcement who are trying to protect a vulnerable population and break a cycle of overt lawlessness, why don’t we concentrate on praying that they will remember what their goal was and do everything in their power and even find additional resources to deliver those children from a controlling and abusing world and provide them with educations and more alternatives in their lives than they were ever going to have last month.
People have no problem with what the State of Texas is doing here because we live in a perverse and corrupt world filled with cold, callous, and hateful people.
We are all affected by the insidiousness of this culture around us, and we are all controlled by our fears.
We have a homosexual government in a paedophilic society, where people want to impose control on others because they cannot control themselves.
What the State is doing here is an outrage, but only expect things to get worse from here on out! Just wait till they bring the military cordon to a metropolis near you.
So much for all the “liberal Mormons” out there… Marriage between males is fine with you, but how dare someone have more than one wife! Talk about double standards in our pansy, politically-correct world!
It is just absolutely ridiculous that the State’s case is founded upon the fact that they could not locate divorce records!!! THINK WITH YOUR BRAINS, PEOPLE!
Adding that there is, of course, no relationship between everyone in a neighborhood and a pregnant 16yo in the general population. OTOH, there is a clear relationship between the people in a community with the kind of socialist economic order that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young designed and such as *is* the design of the YfZ. What’s more, the very unanimity of the community which is directed from the top and fortified by generations of interbreeding is the very mechanism by which unwilling young women are made willing to make themselves available to smelly old men who already have wives of 20, 30 and 40 that they’ve grown tired of.
Re: Homeschooling is highly regulated in almost every state
I was a direct witness to the state of homeschooling (or keeping home from school, as my wife calls it) in Arizona. The parents in this family considered the mere presence of textbooks and the enrollment of children into online correspondence school the end of their responsibility. The mother worked and the dad was “disabled” and did nothing (he felt that homeschooling kids was the mothers responsibility.) OR, if the kids didn’t open the books and study them, then it was the kids fault that they didn’t get an education. The kids would thus sit home and watch videos all day long and lack even simple literacy. The other kids in their Sunday School classes would make fun of them because they couldn’t read the scriptures. When it came time to finish the online tests or miss out on a high school diploma, the mother would complete the tests herself and submit them. We tried to play Catch Phrase with the kids one time, and the teenage boy couldn’t read the term “tree of life” without help. We considered turning them in to the Arizona social services or other authorities until we found that there were no requirements to show that you were actually educating your kids, thus there would be nothing that could be done. This was a deplorable situation. We tried to work with a couple of the kids to get them into college classes, but they were so far behind and so intimidated by formal classroom education that it was a huge barrier. Their opportunities for a successful future are forever stunted. Yes, the parents are the ones to blame, but who looks out for the kids when the parents do nothing. They didn’t want their kids associating with all the evil influences found at a public school, but their own kids were getting into trouble because they didn’t have anything else to do. I guess some states actually require kids to take tests to show that minimum standards are met. Shocking that nothing like this exists in Arizona.
Alice, I am trying to focus on the actions of the state, so let me phrase it this way:
If they are convinced that abuse is inevitable, and if they are convinced that crimes are being committed on a widespread scale, ***why did they go after the victims (the women and children) and leave the perpetrators (the men) free?*** Why couldn’t they have let the children stay in a familiar and non-threatening environment (their homes with their mothers) and taken away the men who are accused of the illegal and repulsive actions? The state could have accomplished the exact same thing with FAR LESS trauma to the kids.
All of the other issues aside, this is what bothers me the most - that it appears as if very little thought was put into the very real trauma they are imposing on these kids and what they are NOT doing to the men. If the men are the criminals (and I can accept that), why not arrest them? If the evidence doesn’t justify their arrest, then it shouldn’t justify the removal of the children - and if they are interrogating minor children (some as young as 2) in the absence of anyone they know in order to gain “evidence” against the men . . . scary doesn’t even begin to describe it.
They want to inoculate the children, simple as that.
Alice, we do not need to know about your improprieties with “smelly old men”… You cannot hide your base drives and perversions behind your self-righteous and all-assuming attitude.
Sexual perverts see sexual perversion everywhere they look!
Ray- I can see that taking the men into custody is an acceptable alternative. But it seems to me that there is still the issue of keeping the compound open and unmolested to gather appropriate evidence.
#34 - Please stow it, Derek. That is WAY beyond acceptable.
Thanks, Ray. Kind of you but I assure you I am more than capable of disregarding nonsense.
Oh, but speculating as to their improprieties isn’t “WAY beyond acceptable”… I think you just made my point…
Polygamy in New Testament Times:
http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/04/polygyny-in-nt-times/
Alice: “why don’t we concentrate on praying that they will remember what their goal was and do everything in their power and even find additional resources to deliver those children from a controlling and abusing world and provide them with educations and more alternatives in their lives than they were ever going to have last month.” Hear, hear! The pragmatic concern is dealing with 416 additional children in an already taxed foster care system. If some of the women can be repatriated and monitored (somehow), there may be a way to return some of the children to their (single) mothers. Outreach by LDS families willing to take in FLDS foster kids has been suggested by other comment boards also. If saving the children from a sheltered, insular cult that encourages illegal behavior is the object, child welfare has to come first. The threat is that like mercury in the desert, when you step on it, it rolls away and forms elsewhere.
there are 4000 registered sex offenders in my city, Why don’t they come roll up the lot of us and haul us off for questioning?
p.s. I am not one of them, I meant haul off the whole city, AS IF…
Taking exception with you, hawkgrrrl, after seeing interviews with a couple of the women of YfZ Ranch. They seem profoundly devoid of personalities. I’m not saying they look like they wouldn’t be the life of the party or that they couldn’t hold a stimulating conversation. I’m saying they seem remote and lack appropriate emotional responses. Even when they talk about the children being missing they speak without any apparent conviction, cry as if pretending to and switch moods and topics on a dime.
I am NOT saying that I think they are insincere. I am saying that I think they are so abused themselves that they are profoundly depressed and or mentally ill and otherwise not capable of raising emotionally healthy children — especially in the situation where the children will need rehabilitative work.
On a slightly different topic, the news reports I am hearing suggest that TX had no idea the extent of the problem when they entered the ranch in search of the complaintant. They estimated the total population of YfZ to be about 100 adults and children. But, once confronted with the extent of the problem they had no choice but to remove them until they were satisfied that they had safe living conditions.
Alice, you just nailed my biggest problem with the way the state has handled this. They had no idea what they were getting into, which means they ended up over-reacting.
Best example: They say they are trying to protect the children from sexual abuse, including statutory rape. I understand that motivation, but if that is the case **why remove the girls under 10?**
Even more tellingly, why remove the boys? Based on absolutely everything I’ve heard about this group, those boys were in no danger whatsoever of sexual abuse and statutory rape. They are not accused of abuse or being abused - only of being indoctrinated. This means that the state removed the boys because of the TEACHINGS of the group, NOT because of any actions by or toward them. How is that possibly defensible from a legal standpoint - and how does that not scare you beyond belief? If kids can be removed from their mothers for what they are being TAUGHT, what’s to stop the state from doing the same to other groups that teach unpopular and “weird” concepts?
Size and political clout alone, as witnessed by the state’s unwillingness to arrest baby daddies and remove the kids they produce from the baby factories that call themselves mothers - **and Christians**. That irony is missed by most people, but how could the state possibly remove children from those who profess to be Baptists and Methodists - even as they break the moral command just as openly and blatantly as any polygamists? (More so, actually, since the polygamists at least have an appearance of dedication to family, twisted as it might appear to others - and actually be.)
Bottom line: I just hate double standards, and this case is the ultimate in double standards.
AP Headline: “Polygamous-sect hearing in Texas descends into farce”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_re_us/polygamist_retreat
Excerpts:
“Walther signed an emergency order nearly two weeks ago giving the state custody of the children after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hot line claiming her husband, a 50-year-old member of the sect, beat and raped her. **The girl has yet to be identified.**”
“Department of Public Safety Sgt. Danny Crawford testified to DPS’s discovery of a church bishop’s records taken from a safe at the ranch that listed about 38 families, SOME of them polygamous and SOME that included wives 16 or 17 years old. But under repeated cross-examination, Crawford acknowledged the records contained NO evidence of sexual abuse.”
“At issue was an attempt by the state of Texas to strip the parents of custody and place the children in foster homes because of evidence they were being physically and sexually abused or in imminent danger of abuse.”
All of them are in danger of imminent sexual abuse?! Preposterous.
“The children, who are being kept in a domed coliseum in San Angelo, range in age from ***6 months*** to 17 years. ***Roughly 100 of them are under 4.***”
How is this not over-reacting?
I agree that TX is clearly going after polygamy and the FLDS religion, and that they were assuming this was another Waco on their hands. As they say, “Don’t mess with Texas.”
Alice may have a point about most of the women being too out of touch and depressed to retain custody, although I have to hold some hope that there are some women in the group who are fit to be mothers under the right circumstances (including repatriation). Other interviews with FLDS women have shown some to be college-educated and articulate. We are only seeing what the media shows. But I am inclined to believe that many of the children are better off growing up more mainstream. People can say “which religion will be targeted next?” but I believe FLDS is over the line into cult territory, even if not on the David Koresh scale. A peaceful cult. But a cult.
the bull - thanks for that clarification. I did a double take!
Ray- You assume that only kind of abuse in question is sexual exploitation. That may have been part of the initial allegation but even that allegation included charges of physical abuse which is not gender specific. There are also reports that underage boys were forced into labor. There is a question about what kind of education any of the children got.
You and I are sitting in front of our computers making guesses. The authorities in TX were on the spot having sworn duties to discharge and overwhelming decisions to make. I am not comfortable second-guessing them and I see more than enough justification to have acted in some manner.
I remind you that no one has been charged with anything. But temporary steps have been taken — justifiably in my opinion — to gather information in a safe environment to determine what the long-range tack should be.
Meanwhile, I hope AZ and UT will profit from what TX learns about conditions on the YfZ Ranch and the legal proceedings arising from it. Because there are hundreds more children living in circumstances that could be similar and may be worse. This is a *sick* situation as the merest consultation with your stomach should indicate.
None of you have a point as we sit here in the cult of the Internet, sheltered by insular websites, feeding our own egos, gratifying our lusts to be better than others. Feeling so angry with ourselves that we must dream of kidnapping other people’s children and then attempt to rationalize it.
How does it feel to be the proud people dressed in fine apparel gathered up into a great and spacious building, pointing out at the world and mocking those that stumble in the darkness as they search for the iron rod?!?
Some points:
First of all…. Underage boys forced into labor?? Thank goodness CPS doesn’t check on those poor farm boys.
It is traditional for young children to work. That’s not abuse in any way.
Next, apparently there are several women who claim to be over 18 (including a 20 year-old who’s lawyer was complaining today that he has not be able to see her)
The position of CPS is that they don’t look over 18, and they don’t believe them when they claim to be older so they get to imprison them.
Now maybe CPS is right and they are lying, but I don’t see how that suspicion can be used to imprison them. America’s legal system assumes that people are telling the truth- it’s incumbent upon CPS to provide proof that they are lying.
I find it very disturbing that CPS can grab a young woman and demand that she prove (somehow- since they are not accepting birth certificates) that she is over 18 before she can go free.
I mean, I think of a good friend of mine, Diana. She’s 24, but she looks like a junior high student. She’s 5 foot 2, and looks very young.
Also, the fact that girls at the FLDS ranch thought having children was the greatest thing that could happen to them… that’s evidence of brainwashing?
http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2008/apr/17/live-from-the-courthouse-updates-ON-FLDS-CUSTODY/
Also, the key element in CPS case seems to be that they have been taught that it is okay for “children” (meaning teenagers) to have children. CPS argues that that is so horrible that none the children can be returned to their families.
I might point out a few things. First of all, Texas law allows 16 yearolds to marry with their parents permission, that implies that the state of Texas thinks it’s acceptable for 16 year olds to have children (under certain circumstances). Also not to long ago (4 years) Texas state law said 14 year olds could marry with their parents permission. So lets tamp down the outrage just a bit okay.
Now I understand the argument that these are not legal marriages and therefor statutory rape laws still apply- I agree with prosecuting the “husbands” for rape. I repeat that I support that.
However, using the mere religious belief that a 16 year old is old enough to marry as evidence of abuse is outrageous. Are we going to take away all the Muslim and Hindu children too?
When I was growing up (~12 years ago when I was 15), there were a bunch of Mormon girls between Kansas City and Adam-ondi-Ahman that were into marrying off and having children at age 17 (legal age in MO). It was certainly not a condoned practice nor encouraged behavior, it was just what some very devout girls really wanted.
One such girl had a thing for me and hoped that I might be her 17-year-old mate. While I wasn’t about to go for such a thing, I also wasn’t about to ridicule her for her eagerness like you guys seem so happy to do (even if I did break her heart by ceasing our correspondence, as I did not then know how to handle such a situation).
And this is to say nothing of eager Mormon girls in Kansas that can marry at age 14!
If you guys would study history and theology, you would know that the institution of marriage is ONLY about procreation and nothing more. So Texas used to think 14-year-olds could have children by their husbands, and many states still think this!
I generally agree with ya hawkgrrrl; but maybe not in the granting mothers custody if they agree to leave polygamy.
I’d say that consenting adults should be permitted to live as they wish (even gays) and even if they are ‘living in sin’ as they say. Let them face the consequences before God if they wish to live that way.
But this FLDS raid thing made me remember what Pt Woodruff said in conference when he ended polygamy, what he said his dream was about. Its like the FLDS are living today what the LDS church would have gone through had they continued plural marriage. Todays’ raids and problems are roughly similar to what Pt Woodruff predicted would happen.
And I saw some women from FLDS on Larry King Live. They where all adults who had their children removed because a 16 year old was going to be married off to a 51 year old? Something is missing here in what TX alleges -even if these women are living in sin.
Great post by the way
Great post, hawkgrrl! Until Texas repeals its bigamy law, the state of Texas is free to prosecute members of the FLDS community who are breaking the law. While tragic, these children are in state custody and separated from their parents because their parents are engaging in criminal behavior. Polygamy is illegal. If you don’t like it, lobby your state legislature to change the bigamy laws.
News on CNN today says they have identified that the caller was not from YfZ ranch, as the FLDS women claimed. However, TX will still have to determine what to do with the kids.
ECS - nice to see you over here! I’ve enjoyed your comments and posts on the other sites.
A good friend of mine was raised in a polygamous household, but not FLDS. Her dad just wanted to have 4 wives. They were raised non-religiously. Although she was not part of a cult, she does pretty much hate her dad because of the kind of person he was to choose to do that. It’s pretty messed up.
I have 3 fathers and 3 mothers, but since my family has divorce records, they won’t be hauled off to jail any time soon. Having been raised Mormon, I don’t much mind the fact that I have extra parents.
It was coming to terms with my theology and embracing the doctrines I was taught to believe as a child that made me not “pretty much hate” my parents for the divorces and changed my mind as to thinking things were “pretty messed up”.
Maybe you guys don’t understand Mormon theology completely, but when my biological mother and father and their spouses die, my elder brother will perform the temple rites to seal my mother to her 3 husbands and to seal my father to his 3 wives.
Maybe you guys don’t understand that this is a cult website about a cult religion (Mormonism). Any religion worth practicing demands a cult from its followers! Read the dictionary, and stop using the perverted, demeaning, and meaningless definitions of a popular brain dead culture.
You guys sound like zombies or mind control slaves. BRAAAAAINS!
“Polygamy is and always was an outrage, a disgrace and a perversion.”
So was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob also perverts? For those of you who believe it “never was” of the Lord or condoned, throw out half of your Old Testament. What happens if the Church goes back to it in the future, or in the Milennium, or in Heaven. Elder Oaks was at a fireside a few years ago and repeated twice that he was sealed to his two wives. That makes Elder Oaks a polygamist, albeit a heavenly one. Sometimes our outrages are based on our own correlated circumstances and cultural proclivities. Humility in these matters is always key.
As you say, Peter, D&C 132 is still alive and can be reinstated at any time. …which is, I suppose, why the church has been embarrassingly silent about YfZ.
This post is terribly problematic. There isn’t any firm evidence that polygamy is being attacked directly. Sure, it is being attacked indirectly, but it doesn’t seem to be the number issue at hand. If polygamy were being attacked directly, the men would be under fire and would be tried for bigamy.
In addition, suggesting that this means the end of polygamy seems quite naive. It’s not going anywhere. As I’m sure you’re aware, the FLDS are only one among many such communities in the U.S. (some are Mormons of some stripe, others have no affiliation with Mormonism whatsoever).
And do you really believe that outlawing homeschooling and raising the legal marriage age in all states to 18 would help the problems you outline here? Do you see any problems with those solutions?
alice, your comment #18 and subsequent comments prove that cultural imperialism is alive and well in America today. How sad.
Peter - I’m firmly in the “wait and see” camp on celestial matters like being sealed to more than one spouse and the law of consecration. I’ll get to the theoretical commandments once I master the ones I have been given. That should keep me busy enough for the next 60 years or so. I agree with you that humility is always key.
Alice - I think the church’s silence is like having a distant in-bred cousin get arrested publicly. The FLDS are our Billy Carter. We’re not responsible for this relations illegal activities, but somewhat embarrassed and a concerned about what will be said about the family tree.
Peter Brown said, “So was Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob also perverts? For those of you who believe it “never was” of the Lord or condoned, throw out half of your Old Testament.”
This is a fallacious misdirecting of the argument. To try to sum up the Christian opposition to LDS polygamy, as I understand it, is:
1) Joseph Smith was not a prophet because Christians do not believe his teachings accord with nor follow from the teachings and practices of Christ’s church that radically altered the doctrinal and cultural paradigm from that of the Jewish bible period. Furthermore, Christians see the internal inconsistencies with what Smith claimed about his revelations, and how he went about obtaining them (folk magic, divination, etc.) to furthermore raise doubt about his veracity in speaking for the divine. [It further compounds the problem that this evaluation of Smith is in a post-Enlightenment western culture where the historical case is especially doubt-casting; though it is fair to argue that historicity on its own is not the best critical argument since Christians do not equally apply it to their own scriptural record.]
2) As Christians take objection with Joseph Smith’s legacy of spiritual leadership, it also calls into question his private behavior and character, for ex: how he went about implementing polygamy. It is believed this a) was especially questionable compared to how he went about with his other so-called revelatory processes (much more specious, deceitful and on the sly), and b) was replete with especially questionable practices e.g., abuse of power and the culpability in having other women members enter in to a polyandrous relationship with him.
3) Christians consider that some other OT Fathers’ or kings’ (Abraham, David, etc.) practice of polygamy, concubinage, and polyamory a cultural practice which God indulged, and is sinful, were we to practice them ourselves, in light of new NT standards. The OT practices are not doctrinal because we do not have scripture teaching the practice as doctrinal — and we certainly have many Jewish cultural practices laid out as matters of holiness within the Pentateuch/Torah. Furthermore following the Captivity it is clear that polygamous practices fell out of cultural normalcy with the Jews, and reduced further as Greek cultural influence spread. By the time the Christian church was established we have not only monogamous culture as the heterosexual norm, but also specific doctrine in the early Church that a man is the be the husband of only one woman.
4) Since we all sin and fall short of the glory of God, obviously we’d have to throw out all scripture if we did so because people (and prophets) sin. This is a fallacious argument. Smith’s polygamous doctrine, may not be necessarily condemnable if it were a) a cultural, legal norm and b) permitted from God, yet because of Smith’s questionable revelatory and spiritual leadership heritage, Christians reject that it was a revealed practice. And it certainly was not a legal nor culturally sympathetic practice. (It continues to be revolting marital practice to most sensibilities, including many modern LDS members.)
5) It is true David the king was given wives and concubines by the prophet, and David’s behavior isn’t directly condemned except where he took as wife another man’s wife (Uriah) and had him killed. This is not justification for the implementation of polygamy in the early LDS church. Furthermore, since Joseph not only took extra wives not in accordance with this biblical example (he was an authority unto himself and could not be questioned nor “checked” like David could), but he took other men’s wives as his own, clearly perpetuating a sin like unto David’s with Bathsheba.
6) Lastly, even where polygamy was a cultural practice in OT scripture, it was never taught as a divine order. Therefore for Smith, and especially for leaders from Young afterward, to teach that polygamous marriage was God’s ultimate divine law and expectation also does not follow from biblical culture nor teachings, whether OT or NT.
All of this evidence and argument is compelling to Christians that LDS polygamy’s start was sinful and not of divine origin. The seeds we see in the FLDS scandal were sown from the beginning of its practice in the LDS church.
“As Christians take objection with Joseph Smith’s legacy of spiritual leadership, it also calls into question his private behavior and character, for ex: how he went about implementing polygamy.” I believe this statement is backwards. Most of the critics of JS originate their criticism in his personal behavior and character (fortune hunting, boisterous character) and then interpret his deeds as the result of his “morally bad” character (outcomes were fraud, immoral relations, deification).
If you take JS’s character to be good, these outcomes are placed in a wholly different light than the view of critics. JS becomes a fallible human, with failings on par with everyone, who was asked by God (or believed in earnest that he was) to both preach and do some extremely difficult things. I, for one, cannot reconcile the image of JS I see with that of his critics. Was he a terrible financier? Heck, yes; although, there was no national banking system, so my modern standards are pretty high. Was he lustful and adulterous? I don’t see that–he was very devoted to Emma, and polygamy broke his heart. Was he the most boisterous person to hold the title prophet? Probably. Did he intentionally deceive people to make himself important or to get gain? I just don’t see that. I believe JS was earnest and humble and tried to do the right things, whatever else his failings may have been.
hawkgrrrl (62): I can see your perspective, though I don’t hold it myself. I have LDS friends who do. All who do define themselves as heretical, in that they think that Smith was not only fallible, but particularly flawed. Yet they believe that divinity still worked thru him — even though all of them don’t accept the modern LDS church narrative about these events. When Smith is so radically defined, that he neither fits the standard to which Christians object, nor to that which most mainstream LDS believe, it is challenging to debate the point. Such a person rejects the standards of the orthodox critic, and the orthodox of their own self-professed faith. But this is the walk we have seen with many spiritual heretics, and it is a walk with which many of them are comfortable. One has to respect that honesty.
I still think the outcomes of Smith’s heritage (and to this point, particularly what we are discussing here about the FLDS) are radically inconsistent with scriptural doctrine and culture, and especially with that laid out in NT scripture. But then, I also am a Christian. So I’ve chosen my team
hawkgrrrl- I admire the fearlessness of your honesty.
hawkgrrrl (#61): I quote the Church Handbook of Instruction, chapter 8 “Temples and Marriages”, section “Sealing Policies”, p. 73 — “Deceased Women: A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.”
The Church WILL practice the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage in the hereafter, it is our doctrine and practice today. The Church WILL again practice the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage on the Earth upon the completion of the restoration (the restoration, contrary to popular Mormon belief, is not yet complete).
In early days of our Church, the women also had multiple husbands. (Its called “plural marriages”, folks, not “plural wives”!) The women were sealed “for time and all eternity” to one husband, and they could then marry further husbands and be sealed “for time only”. Upon their deaths, they would be sealed “for time and all eternity” by proxy to all of their “for time only” spouses.
Joseph Smith, Jr., shared wives with Parley P. Pratt and others!
Derek - I don’t dispute the handbook, but what does it mean? It can mean lots of things. I for one can’t fathom what happens after death as clearly as you do, but I am a few years closer to it than you are, so maybe I don’t want to peer over the precipice just yet. It certainly never said that everyone would be living polygamously as they were on YfZ ranch.
I am aware of the marital mish-mosh in the early church to which you refer. These relationships were simply nothing like anything outside of science fiction, IMO, and I don’t understand them in practical terms. They are totally foreign. They were not living like the YfZ ranch. They were not living like Abraham or Jacob. The marriages are almost more like an intricate square dance, and seemingly as intimate (which is to say, not very). Couples came together, do-si-do’d (or didn’t), and pulled apart again. Eight people in one dance, four in another, three here. Yet, it wasn’t a lustful orgy. An orgy I would understand (well, I read Helter Skelter anyway).
I suppose my life with kids and husband, a job in a complex modern industry, a blackberry, flying across the country every other week, would also seem foreign to those people 150 years ago. Things that I don’t understand and can’t fathom don’t get in the way of the things that I do know. But I appreciate your thoughts.
Well… the doctrine on the necessity of a spouse to enter the highest order of the celestial kingdom, and the self-evident differences in the number of valiant men, and the number of valiant women suggests that polygamy must be at least permitted in the life after death, although probably not required… (as the difference in numbers does not seem to reach 2 to 1 ratios).
This seems to be what logic would dictate, however, I am open to the possibility that mortal logic can not comprehend the plan of God.
Derek,
We have pronouncements from people such as Wilford Woodruff and Bruce R. McConkie that plural marriage will return at some point. But plural marriage is not the same as the New and Everlasting Covenant. It is only an appendage to it. I think you would be hard pressed to find an authority in the Church now who would agree with these statements of earlier authorities.
I think plural marriage is a messy thing by nature that will be sorted out in the next life, and there is nothing that guarantees it will be practiced in the millennium or the next life. We simply don’t know what will be revealed in the Millenium. We simply do not know if the wives will be redistributed in the next life who previously lived in a plural relation so all are monogamous.
God is no respecter of persons. So either all will be monogamous, or all will be polygamous. Many early brethren referred to plural marriage as a “blessing.” This is a “blessing” that nobody can receive in our day because it is not offered, and those who pass on through mortality to the spirit world in our day do not have the opportunity to live it. Either the Lord has to equalize it by making all relations polygamous in the next world, or he needs to make it all monogamous. But I contend nobody knows which way it will go.
Cicero - “self-evident differences in the number of valiant men, and the number of valiant women” I’ve heard this said many times, and said it myself, but the view from relief society doesn’t look so much grander than the view in priesthood. I don’t buy this argument anymore. I just think the LDS have a mother complex. We revere women beyond what women deserve and conversely we criticize men far too much. Just my opinion from the other side of the house.
UFO Skeptic - if it’s decided in the next life, I hope it goes to referendum. I know where my vote lies.
hawkgrrrl, I know which way a man’s “natural man” would vote, but I also know that those feelings have to be bridled, as we have been commanded. If it is all polygamy in the next life, then those feelings will be put to good use. If it is all monogamy, then those feelings will have to be taken away, because they won’t serve anything, and certainly the Lord would not leave men to be tormented by those feelings in eternity.
Objectively if I didn’t have a natural man, I would vote for monogamy, if my vote was based on pure logic and not feelings.
Derek #65,
“Joseph Smith, Jr., shared wives with Parley P. Pratt and others”
Your statement is misleading and wrong. Pratt and his wife where almost divorced, so they then decided to continue their ‘life’ marriage to be faithful to the law, but the wife wanted to be sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity. They all agree to this set up. That was far from ’sharing wives’.
And the church does allow a woman to be sealed to several husbands after death but to permit the children to be sealed to both of their own parents, not to share husbands. It’s a situation similar to divorce today when the children don’t change parents necessarily because they divorce. The handbook clarifies this and you should have quoted that sentence too.
hawkgrrrl
“We revere women beyond what women deserve and conversely we criticize men far too much.”
Very, very true.
Hawkgrrrl said, “I don’t dispute the handbook, but what does it mean? It can mean lots of things.”
Hawkgrrrl: What does your “for time and all eternity” sealing between you and your husband mean? I think Mormonism is pretty clear as to what these sealings mean.
Well, it will mean exactly the same thing for my mother and her 3 husbands!
My ancestor Charlemagne has been sealed for time and all eternity to all of his wives and concubines. How does this differ from your sealing or my mother’s sealings? It doesn’t.
The Lord will not compel anyone into polygamy or monogamy. Resurrected and exalted beings will inhabit spheres one above another according to their progression. If your progression falls short of plural relationships, then I hope you’ll get into the Celestial kingdom with only one husband.
Although, I’m 100% certain that when the veil is rent and you have full access to the knowledge of God, that you will be able think back to these posts of yours and be utterly ashamed of yourself. (The same goes for me, and I fully expect to be ashamed of my posts to this forum.)
It has already been decided how things will be in the next life, and when you have access to those truths and that perfect knowledge, you will have no contentions with it (unless you just happened to forget to rebel in the pre-existence and join Lucifer’s host).
UFO Skeptic :—
Please see The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (the bracketed aside is an editorial clarification written by Joseph Fielding Smith):
The Celestial Glory
Section Six 1843-44, p.301
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom: he cannot have an increase.” (May 16, 1843.) DHC 5:391-2.
hawkgrrrl (66): All I can say is I always enjoy your lucidity and perspective on these discussions
***
On an aside, this marriage after death LDS conceptualization only bespeaks the LDS “common doctrine” perspective of literal deification. Why else for such an institution and doctrine to be taught as Truth?
It’s too bad that LDS have — or at least my wife and I had — the belief that Christians think no relationships transcend into life hereafter. I mean, marriage as an institution has all sorts of practical benefits in this life to regulate sexual norms, parental accountability, and legal entitlements. (And probably the worse of those ‘entitlements’ in the history of the institution is considering that women are mere property. That whole comment of “redistributing’ wives or partners in the hereafter just gives me the creeps.) Anyhow, Christians consider the emotional bonding between husband and wife also as special and transcendant, a a deep soul-bonding we hope (and have no reason to doubt) could continue into the hereafter. But neither spouse owns the other, nor will be ‘redistributed’ to another. Our ultimate commitment is to God in Christ. My misunderstanding of this doctrine is probably one reason I once considered Christianity hopeless.
Just as we humans enjoy all sorts of positive, healthy and emotionally-fulfilling non-sexual relationships in this life, including with our personal God, there is no reason to believe relationships do not transcend into heaven. We don’t all hope for separate mansions on separate clouds where we only talk to Jesus Christ for eternity! IMO, there is no reason for an institution of marriage to exist in the hereafter. That is, unless, one literally accepts that humans must become Gods and that sexual bonding, legal entitlements and parental accountability must exist in Heaven and be perpetuated on and on….
Anyhow, the “rubber on the road” for me is that many LDS and Christians alike spend far too much time living as if they are killing time for the hereafter. I’m all for heaven on earth. Marriage can be heaven and hell on earth. I’ve seen it both ways. (Thankfully I enjoy a heavenly aspiring relationship now.) Hawkgrrl’s humorous “square dance” analogy, and the literal outcome observed in the present and historical record of observant polygs, is enough for me to be convicted such is Hell on Earth. Good enough reason for me to expect no better for heaven if that’s the standard.
Not a continuation of the same conversation, perhaps, but I’ve just read that the Warren Jeffs’ group has bought and are developing properties in CO, SD and ID.
Your statement is misleading and wrong. Pratt and his wife where almost divorced, so they then decided to continue their ‘life’ marriage to be faithful to the law, but the wife wanted to be sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity. They all agree to this set up. That was far from ’sharing wives’.
Actually, Carlos, your statement is somewhat misleading and wrong, too. Joseph Smith’s early polyandrous practices appear to oft