They could dissolve the charitable trust, but that would still place the respective assets into the control of someone to manage the dissolution. Plus, locating said beneficiaries would be next to impossible in a case which has seen complete noncompliance by those managing the trust.

So far Bruce Wisan has been pretty fair in trying to pay the debts of the organization. Designating land as the site of the “future temple” is just grandstanding. As far as being hostile, you have an accountant forcing you to dissolve your assets and pay your debts. Do you think that relationship would be someone adversarial? Even if Bruce is fair to the trust and the creditors, it would still be offensive to the FLDS members.

Add to that, you have situation where some of the creditors are former FLDS members, outcasts from their community, left to starve and suffer away from their homes, their family, and community and you can see how any accountant under any circumstance would not think highly of the organization.

No one has said anything because the way this organization was run was abusive, self righteous, and detrimental to many of it’s members.

Most of the polygamist groups in UT have been left largely alone, particularly the ones around Salt Lake. The FLDS, though, with their abuse of children, both of child brides and teenage “lost boys” will be targets of legal action for many years to come.

Later, guys.

On the subject of polygamy.

From a Christian (non-mormon) pov, if I am to be completely honest, the Bible is in-consistent. Until you read the orignal (or as best as we have it) languages in historical context. It is clear that early Christions were told a “bishop” should have “but one wife” but this was told to persons who were obligated to live the Roman law of one wife. It was also a thematic injunction against the Roman practices of wife swapping and other extramarital escapades. Beyond these facts we know very little about just why ti was taught and what circumstances actually brought the topic to bear.

The OT is very clear that such arrangements were not only permissible but approved by God. Too many prophets were involved and even specifically blessed by God for their management of such relationships.

Christ obviously had litle problem with the idea of polygamy. Anybody remember his parable about the one bridegroom and the TEN virgins? Christ fairly directly taught polygamy was OK when he implied it was OK for the man to take TEN wives. though the parable is sometimes described as a contrivance by the early church to bolster the imminent return of Christ, it also is interpreted by many churches as refering to poeple preparing themselves to meet God because Christ could come at any time or the person could die at anytime so be prepared. This story could also be interpreted as showing direction for wise men in chosing wives who are also wise, not just to satisfy carnal urges. If the bridegroom had beena more carnal man he’d have thrown open the door and invited all of them in for a party. But he chose the five women who show prudence and forethought. Though the actual message intended to be sent was more along the lines of being prepare to meet your maker at any time by being good little boys and girls, he specifically used the polygamist relationship in the context of the participants being, right in what they were doing, making no mention of any sort of idea that “oh by the way, this is just a story, and you really shouldn’t marry 5 women.” This was clearly a part of what Christ just accepted as being acceptable.

Just as there are a very FEW mentions in the Bible (OT&NT)of how bad it was to have more than one wife, brjones pointed out the same in the Book of Mormon. But just as the number of instances where the OT and NT either say or imply by the preceived righteousness of its practicioners, that polygamy is OK or good, so does the Book of Mormon, ala the references given by Brent.

If we look at the modern history of the LDS Church we also have the same dilemma. We have the early church leaders not only saying it was good and acceptable but several prophets and apostles absolutel stated that if the Church ever abandoned it, the Church would be abandoning God for the love of the world and would eventually be denied His protection in times of need. According to them it was an enlightened doctrine or salvation and exaltation. Possible the most difficult of all doctrines because it required both men an women to abandon their animal natures (women their covetousness and selfishness and men to subsume their sexual passions and desires to dominate.) But then we have Gordon B. Hinckley saying point blank “it is not docrinal.” Now we have a few issues here where the OT, the NT and modern prohets all contradict each other.

The problem does not start with the number of spouses. The problem starts with THE SPOUSES themselves. One can say they feel that polygamy is disgusting. One can say, not me, I’m not sharing. One can say, OK but why can’t women have multiple husbands too? From a certain cultural and emotional bias any of these seeme legitimate. But are they really?

IF it is true that there are more women than men (modern medicine is making this less true but for the most part it is still statistically true over the course of human history) does not every woman deserve a husband? If it is true that men and women are as equal as so many say, then that means the must be a similar ratio of good to bad women as good to bad men. Given that equanimity, we still come out with too few husbands or good husbands for the good women. And what if, as is popular on our increasingly gynocentric society women are better people, on the whole, than men, then we have an even greater roblem of male scarcity.(I don’t espouse male dominance either. I beleive all should find their place they can best contribute and then to do so.) All women deserve to have a man that treats them with deference, love respect and values them for all they have to offer a family, not just cooking, cleaning, daddy’s midnight entertainment or baby making. If any of this is true then the only model for all the women who would want a marriage can only be polygamy.

Let get away from the theological and the sociological aspects and look directly at the genetic/Darwinian perspective. Given the propensity for females to outnumber the males in the general human population, the only solution to full mating and reproductive capacity of the species is to engage in the acceptance of multiple female partners to individual males. The advantage would go to those males best able to provide the females with what they value. some desire protection and so the more athletic and even violent will attractnumerous famles. some desire comfort and ease which would favor teh wealthy, and hopefull y the more industrious. Others will desire more cereberal or cultural attributes and so they will gravitate to those men. All in all you would have men with obvious beneficial traits in a better position to mate and pass along those traits to their offspring. Obviously, attractive more women means having more offspring. The genetic lines of men with less desirable traits would be less prevalent in each successive generation. theoreticall this woul dlead to a much faster/efficient general improvement to the human genome.

Consider also the question of women marying more than one man. Here were wade hip deep into the Dawinian mire. Theoretically, males will be more likely to stick around if the female bears his offspring. This is bourne our through many many centuries of human record keeping and writen/oral tradition. If one woman were to solicit and gain the sexual attention fo numerous male, the resulting offspring will likely not be easily attributable to a particular male. The males will not be as likely to stay around and the family unit would break down. soon the woman has no husbands and maybe several children. Not good. But this is all theory right? So we can just ignore this littel tidbit of logic, right? Not so fast, what situation do we have in the culture of several minority and/or impoverished populations in the USA. Many teen girls have sex with multiple partners hoping one will step up and claim her exclusively and keep her to himself. They often allow themselves to get pregnant hoping to “trap” one of them. This is a common story told by girls across the US and other countries as the reason they have sex with so many boy/men so often. There is ample cultural proof of what happens right there. Besides, keeping genetic line straight, an obviosly good idea, would be enormously, to the point of near impossibility, difficult. The expense (by using modern gene analytics) even in our highly medically advance society are prohibitive and impossible in any society that is more than 10-20 years les advance than are we. Simply speaking the question “who’se your daddy?” would take on drastic changes of meaning and not being able to accurately trace lineages might easily subject the population to genetic problems we really do not want to deal with, inthe wake of the many potential incestuisms that would accidentally follow.

Now with a monogamous relationship or multiple-wife situation that lineage in clear and easily traceable.

Thus even nature supports the MFF relationshipo and not the FMM.

Really there is no real good answer here regarding the “human trafficking” concept. Some men are “kept” just as some women are. Fully intimidated by either their wive’s physical size/power, economic power, or the force of a set of laws that often favor women over men in family matters.

OK, this is much longer than I planned,so I’m going to abbreviate the rest by just saying NONE of your questions address the issue of what to do with the assets. Sorry, None of them. Though I think ALL of your concernes are very valid and I would certainly say I see elements of violations of each in any prudent standard in the actions of Jeffs, et al. But only from a perspective outside that of BIV’s original topic.

I think the assets should be processes in the most expeditious manner possible and be returned to the original contributors in proportion to their contributions.

This all starts with someone stating they think something might be fishy with the idea that the State would seize the assets of the UEP and essentially hold it and eihter allow, or even urge, a government appointed trustee of thoe UEP assets, into the practice of bleeding off millions of $$ in a way thet could easily be perceived as immoral, not illegal.

But within a VERY few post it devolves into a battle re polygamy sprinkle liberally with child abuse allegations.

The crux of the original topic was whether or not the members of the FLDS organization should be allowed to reacquire the remains of the UEP assets, or if they should be maintained perpetually by the state, and consequently be slowly drain of their value in order to pay the continuous costs associted with the said perpetual management.

The proper sicussion should have revolved around the associations of the principal involved. Not their religions or sexual preferences.

I’ll be honest (though anonymous) here by saying I feel a bit conflicted, being an active, temple reccommend and temple attending, MPriesthood holding member of the larger oragnization of the LDS church.

This is certainly a foggy area, that requires much research, thought, prayer and pondering to see through to the truths, and beyond the hyperbole, and the typical emotionalism that is variously fronted as Faith by some, Law by others and Reason by either. All of these (Faith, Law and Reason) have led to the most heinous of atrocities. And in the end we really needent agree with each other to “get along” any more than we all have to agree with me that creamy peanut butter is the best and crunchy is just gross.

There are some fundamental issues, both in the original topic, and the emotional derived topics that developed. I find it particularly interesting that, though I disagree with him on many points, Brent seems to be the only one attempting to approach the discussions with even a modicum of logic or attempt at explaination by reference to what are to him, and many others at mormonmatters, authoritative, rather than by political writ.

But I think maybe these fundamental could be teased out and we could find more common ground.

It is ironic, to me, that I feel I must address the last post before mine, first. (Scripture says the last shall be first.)

That said, I think the legality issues concerning the UEP Trust boils down to questions about fraud and using one’s “freedom of religion” as a free pass to violate the law as well as subvert the human rights of others.

1. Are the ones controlling the UEP trust abusing their power to unjustly force families out of their homes?

2. Is “white” slavery being committed under the cloak of religious freedom?

3. Are women and underage girls being enslaved by means of forced arranged marriages (polygamous or monogamous)followed by forced pregnancy/forced childbirth (which are violations of women’s human rights) even though pregnancy and childbirth puts only females at 100% risk of disability and death?

4. Should “freedom of religion” be used to excuse forced marriages on young girls by de facto trafficking of women and girls as property to be traded like a favorite gun or horse across state and federal boundaries, in violation of the Mann Act — U.S.C 18 Sec 2421? (this does NOT just apply to polygamists!)

5. Are other people’s rights, liberties, and freedoms being abridged or otherwise denied because of the male dominated trustees’ actions?

6. In the name of equality of rights for women, should not women also be allowed to marry more than one man? (After all, I think that’s only fair if we allow polygyny we should also allow polyandry)

7. Is this group using their “freedom of religion” to get away with depriving children of their right to a basic academic education equal or superior to that of the public school system?

As everyone here knows, I don’t like verbal fights that devolve into name calling. Really, that’s all.

Anon, I’ll reserve the right for myself to say what I believe and don’t believe. If you want to disagree with me then fine, but don’t unfairly put words in my mouth

In the gospel I teach my children, a woman is viewed with more reverence, honor, and respect than even our Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ laid down his life, as he saw his father do, and the Father sacrificed His life following the example of his Wife. A woman was the first to sacrifice her life for the people of this earth.

I also give thanks to the prophetess and high priestess that was chosen to introduce this sacred doctrine to this dispensation. I continually exhort my daughters to follow the examples of the strong, independent, and valiant women that have gone on before. May they one day be prophetesses and high priestesses in the gospel.

In case you’re curious, the backstory on this is available: Based on a revelation, Warren Jeffs decided to establish “Yearning for Zion” (YFZ) in Texas and move his favorite followers there. He claimed that Short Creek had been rejected by God (which is why the big white temple was built in Texas, not Short Creek.)

Anyway, the costly construction of YFZ was financed by pilfering the UEP Trust. Jeffs removed UEP equipment and materials (including an extensive irrigation system at Berry Knoll) to Texas. He also raised cash by covertly selling off parcels of UEP land.

Then several suits were filed against the Trust. Jeffs was faced with having to reveal the amount that he had depleted it to fund his YFZ project. Not wanting to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar, Jeffs established his “answer them nothing” policy and ignored the suits. This, of course, led to default judgements against the Trust.

Even after Wisan was appointed to oversee the Trust, UEP assets continued to disappear. Following the removal of a grain elevator, Wisan had to get a judge to issue an injunction against removing UEP property.

“There are more single women than single men in almost every church. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, among singles over age 30 who attend church weekly, there are only 19 men for every 100 women.”

There are also many other worlds and maybe many of the righteous men went to those worlds and will meet up with these righteous women later! To bad for you.

“Monogamy is God’s preferred method for the wicked.”

That is just NOT true. The Lord created Adam and Eve to be one and this is His established pattern of how a relationship should be. Just ask Him.

And your position that monogamy is for the wicked is laughable. I guess adam and eve were wicked. If polygamy is so divine why wasn’t the earth started with adam and eves 1-20?

You think it’s insulting for a man to say he couldn’t handle another wife? Hilarious. I’m sure wives would prefer to hear, gosh, I wish I had a fresh wife or too, I’m getting bored with my current wife. You said “I’m a firm believer that women can think for themselves.” I find that line extremely ironic and insulting. I can guarantee you that if you polled women from all walks of life 95% or more would say that they would prefer a husband of their own than share him with someone else. If you are so for women being able to think for themselves than why are the only women who are for polygamy raised in cultures that are shut off from the outside world? If it is such a great idea that free thinking women would realize on their own than why do they all live in closed communities where religious leaders have to manipulate them with nonsense about god’s will and blah blah blah?

There are more single women than single men in almost every church. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, among singles over age 30 who attend church weekly, there are only 19 men for every 100 women. Why not give these women more options for marriage? I’m a firm believer that women can think for themselves. I don’t think they need society baby sitting them. They don’t need protection from other forms of marriage. Let them marry the man of their choice, and in the system of marriage of their choice. I’m sick of less than desirable men trying to force women into a system of marriage that would cause the women to have to settle for a lessor.

Monogamy is God’s preferred method for the wicked. Jacob was speaking to the wicked. Plural marriage is reserved for the righteous. As I said before, plural marriage is about family. If a man is not going to raise a righteous posterity, then God would prefer to limit the damage, hence, monogamy.

Most men don’t want to live polygamy. They make jokes about how they couldn’t handle another wife, because they can barely handle the one they have now. I’ve heard that response so many times from other men. How insulting that must be for their wives. “I wouldn’t want another one of you!” Men also don’t want to subject to the thoughts and wills of unified majority against them. In other words, they don’t want to be outnumbered. Sisterwives gain leverage in plural marriage. The man has to be a better husband, or he’ll have hell to pay times the number of wives he has. It’s not a coincidence that women’s authority in the Church faded when plural marriage was abandoned.

For me, I love my wife and my children. I can’t express in words the joy they bring to me. Why wouldn’t I want to expand upon that?

Alice,

No doubt you would have supported throwing the prophet Daniel in the lion’s den for his unlawfulness. He wasn’t being persecuted. Daniel was just being held accountable for his unlawfulness. Right? Stop letting bigotry, stereotypes, and unproven allegations cloud your judgment.

This has become a Church that the writers of the Nauvoo Expositer could have fully embraced. I sometimes think that the mob who killed Joseph has won. Sad.
————————–

Thanks again, BiV, for posting on this topic, and standing for agency and justice. You didn’t have to put yourself out there for criticism, but you did, and I truly appreciate it.

Later!

These are people who flaunted the laws of Man and God and allowed children and women to be intimidated and abused on an ongoing basis. They defrauded the Federal government and several state governments. And I don’t understand why you take offense at money going to lawyers and not to the excessive lifestyle of Warren Jeffs.

These people are not being persecuted for their religion. They’re being held to account for lawlessness. It’s too bad you choose not to see that and prefer to frame this as a matter of fear and paranoia for others to internalize.

Certainly there are people who have been victimized. But they were victimized by their leaders. And they choose to return to that abusive way of life. I will not take responsibility for that and, even though I respect your intelligence and sincerity, I fail to see why you do.

In the end, the only thing that makes sense or matters to me is that the FLDS are the ones who paid out the money for food, fuel and lodging (as well as taking off work) and attended the rally to show support of their church and leadership. That is their choice – we all should respect that.

If they didn’t want to be a part of that:
A) the men could have loaded their families in the car and rushed to the attorney generals office for protection from their religion.
B) the women could have got the ear of the media and Mark Shurtleff and his staff and demanded protection from their abusive husbands and church leaders.
C) the boys could apply to Dan Fischer and the Diversity Foundation for a home and paid college education.
D) the girls could have called up CPS or Flora on their cell phones and demand protection from what MIGHT happen to them.

The government has done everything to “protect” them from their religion – but they DON’T WANT protection….they calmly and emphatically told the government and media – we want Lindburg, Shurtleff and Wisan to respect our right to LIVE our religion and worship the way we believe. “Give Back our Land”.

This has been said OVER and OVER again: if there are abuses or underage marriages, or welfare fraud, then concentrate on the INDIVIDUAL cases of wrongdoing.

I’ll tell you who I feel bad for. I feel bad for the people who have sacrificed and given everything they own, who have truly consecrated, and who now have nothing, who ask for only a stewardship and a place to live their religion, and are being forced to line the pockets of a bunch of lawyers. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.