The Calling of Polygamy, and disaster that always follows...

[Calm]

"You can also have monogamously married men who neglect their children..."

But if a monogamously man chooses to neglect his four children, that is  usually  a choice (some do not have that choice due to the necessity of providing...but if lack of time is already a problem for him with four kids, he shouldn't be thinking of that having eight more won't make it even worse).  

If a polygamous man has 12 kids, he has a third of the time the monogamous man does for each child on an individual basis (and anyone who thinks being there for the kids in a group is equal to time with them one on one doesn't understand the depth of bonding and sense of self value that goes one when a child feels an adult is fully focused on them and them alone, that they aren't just important as one of many)...plus he likely has to work longer hours to provide the necessities (maintenance of the home as well as paying for it).  A family of four adults and 12 kids will need more transportation, a larger home, it will take longer to shop, to fix things, etc.  That cuts into individual time.  Emotional and physical absence in a child's life isn't a choice then, it is an inevitability.  There may be things that can counterbalance the lesser involvement, but if one believes it is important for a man to be fully present in his child's life, then the cost of polygamy and larger families for one man must be recognized and not discounted.

I am not automatically dismissing or condemning polygamy, but there are huge costs from it even if there may at times be great blessings in the view of the participants.  Ignoring the costs will only increase resistance to considering the potential benefits from those already concerned.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

Calmoriah:

I don't know to what extent the Lord might allow His purposes to be thwarted by anyone's unrighteous use of agency.  I'm sure He doesn't intervene in all cases in which that might occur.  However, to a great extent, in addition to being who I am today because of choices I have made (for better or for worse ), I am who I am because of choices others have made, as well, including the marital choices my ancestors made.  Whether or not I would exist period, I don't believe I would exist today as I do (again, for better or for worse) if my ancestors had made different choices (including different marital choices).  

While I think that anyone who would beat his chest and would proclaim that, in God's eyes, he has any claim to superiority because of who his parents are, who their parents were, and so on, is in serious need of repentance ("We have Abraham to our father"; "Of these stones, God is able to raise up children unto Abraham"), I am proud of my heritage: My ancestors left me a legacy which is tough to live up to, and they left me huge shoes to fill.  But I am who I am today, in large measure, because I stand on the shoulders of giants.  And as much as many might want to dismiss such an idea as out-of-date, while it might not carry as much weight as it did, say, in the Old Testament, lineage still seems pretty important to the Lord.  Even today, every patriarchal blessing given declares the recipient's lineage in the house of Israel, and we know that specific blessings were pronounced upon each of the tribes. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there is a huge difference between murdering a husband to marry a wife polygamously and the way the vast majority of polygamous marriages occur.

I admit it is an extreme example, but if polygamy were not the "law of the land" or possibly "God's Law", David would not have been able to marry Bathsheba. Because polygamy was practiced he was able to marry again, dispite haveing, "I think" 4-5 wives already. King George the VIII, had to kill his wifes in order to remarry. But, be it the best of, or worst of examples, it all points to weak spirited and weak minded men, who seem to constantly make the institution one that spells disaster to both women and children, in every age in which it was practiced. Hyrum (and Joseph) seemed to be a cut above, but Emma who never stopped loving Joseph, was heartbroken and sick about it. But she loved Joseph all the days of her life, and 34 after Joseph was murdered, she died with his name on her lips. Some who attack Joseph for the number of women he married or was sealed too, think he was a so wicked, but it is clear that many were only being sealed, as no other wife bore him any children. Emma however was with child 11 times. Sadly they lost a few children, but still, Joseph must have viewed polygamy somewhat differently than others. Because when he was having a few younger sisters sealed to him, he was also having old women (well old for that time in their fifties) sealed to him at the same time. 

Having said all of this, the primary purpose of the thread is the inherit weakness in all men (as all men and women) usually leads to disasteous results, for wives and children. Also a loss of eternal blessings for those men who did not heed the Prophets voice, and left the Church because they could not abide no longer practicing polygamy. As far as every group that split from the Church for this reason, losing inspiration and giving themselves over to a reprobate mind. This has resulted "in EVERY case" to horrible abuses and criminal activity. This leading to to prison in many cases, but more than this the rape of children and the homelessness for teenage boys dropped on the streets because they cause a threat to older men desiring younger girls. Boys who are let back in after they have gained employment (make it in the world, if you will) and are thus able to contribute to the finance of the community, in short to give money to the "Profit", spelling correct for the primary reason, to address the sentence. Anyway, sorry for the rant, My mother and my siblings, and myself were victims of such weakness of such a man, so it is a topic that hits very close to home. I give praise to a merciful God, who sent a man of God, to rescue us from abject poverty, and gave unto all of us "his name". The name "Lee", a name which I would never bring shame unto, and a great man who I miss do much. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, CMZ said:

This incident still doesn't make polygamy inherently wrong. God never directed King David to murder someone else just to somehow fulfill a commandment to live polygamy, just as God does not now direct a single man to murder a married man so that the first man can then live monogamously by then marrying the deceased's wife. You can also have monogamously married men who neglect their children; that's not something that could only apply to polygamous situations. And, according to D&C 132, David's wives and concubines have eternally been given to another man. And I suspect that man to be Uriah.

 

Understood, and I hope that Uriah received those blessing, but again, the thread is not about  polygamy being wrong "when sanctioned by God", it is about the weakness of men, who abuse the practice. Also the heavy cost to women and children when they do. Again, let me give just one example... It Jacob's favoring one wife over all others, and doing the same with her children, that caused his other sons (save Benjiman)  to hate Joseph so bad, that they first set out to kill him, but instead sold him into slavery. Although God was able to use that to save and preserve this family, but then they ended up having the 12 Tribes live under for 430, to the day (April 6-April 6) as slaves. Well they were "guests" for the first few years". 

That reminded me as I typed, they entered Egypt on the same day (delivered to safety) and left on the same day (Passover and deliverence) 430 years later...April 6, during the Passover. The teaching of the many reasons that the Church was organized on that day, reflect the OT scripture that teaches this, and the life of Christ...each being a "type and shadow", of "deliverance and salvation". Very cool stuff! 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

"You can also have monogamously married men who neglect their children..."

But if a monogamously man chooses to neglect his four children, that is  usually  a choice (some do not have that choice due to the necessity of providing...but if lack of time is already a problem for him with four kids, he shouldn't be thinking of that having eight more won't make it even worse).  

 

So true, but doesn't this same type of man not compound the problem with dozens of children, or in the case of the Candaian man with 145 children, make it impossible not to neglect his children. He could be a Saint like Job, and still an impossible Mathmatics probability. 

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

the thread is not about  polygamy being wrong "when sanctioned by God", it is about the weakness of men, who abuse the practice.

Well, yes, just like anything where mortal men abuse something. I don't believe anyone here is saying that anyone should behave wrongfully in any way. Having said all that I do believe that it takes an exceptionally Godly man (and women) to live polygamy properly and that the situation could very well make good men better and bad men worse.

[Calm]

"David would not have been able to marry Bathsheba."

A king wants to get around the rules, he can.  Kill his own wife as well as the husband of the woman he wants or just divorce her.  If monogamy prevented mistreatment of partners, the world would be very different.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

So true, but doesn't this same type of man not compound the problem with dozens of children, or in the case of the Candaian man with 145 children, make it impossible not to neglect his children. He could be a Saint like Job, and still an impossible Mathmatics probability. 

If you were asking me that question, I think I answered that in the rest of the post with the same position you hold....there is only so much time in a day, the same for four kids as forty.  Potential one on one time therefore must shrink as number of kids grow.

IIRC, Brigham Young had kids living in his Salt Lake home as well as kids in places he would visit off and on.  Letters are not the same as talking face to face with your dad.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Calm

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

If you were asking me that question, I think I answered that in the rest of the post with the same position you hold....there is only so much time in a day, the same for four kids as forty.  Potential one on one time therefore must shrink as number of kids grow.

IIRC, Brigham Young had kids living in his Salt Lake home as well as kids in places he would visit off and on.  Letters are not the same as talking face to face with your dad.

No, I did wrote that reply to use that thought of yours as a springboard to illustrate to others who keep discounting the idea. I am sorry, I should have made that clear. As to your other point, I remember visiting the Lion House once and seeing the "looking glass". A window where children would "supposedly" look through to see how adults should or would act. I had heard the term "looking glass" before, but it was the first one I had ever seen. You are correct, letters nor a "looking glass" are not the same as one on one with your dad. Or as we say in the sunny South (or people used too) "Daddy", no matter how old you are, or how old your "Daddy". I lost mine 12 years ago and still call him Daddy, no matter the group setting. I learned to be a man by working, speaking, fishing, playing and observing, my Daddy. The one who adopted me and raised me, not the one who abandoned me. But I was so young when he married my Mama, that I don't remember any other. 

[Calm]

A relative lost his father before he was born, his mom never remarried and was fiercely independent so I got the idea there weren't a lot of alternate father figures in his life.  He tried hard to be a good father, but often it felt like he was imitating what he saw without really understanding or maybe had read it in a textbook so had the right moves, but didn't quite connect.  Didn't quite understand the language.

I suspect it can happen even with a dad, but he is to me a great example why kids need a consistent presence of a male father figure in their lives.  

[katherine the great]

I personally don't see any place for polygamy in the modern world. Anciently, most, if not all kings had multiple sexual partners (wives, concubines, mistresses, whatever) because they were kings and needed lots of children for dynastic purposes. That's just how it was done. I don't see anything spiritual about it. Even when it was practiced ideally in our church it was problematic. The first wife was supposed to give her approval, but that automatically sets up a hierarchy among the women. Its much more equitable if every wife gives her approval (like tv's sister wives.) I think there were some pretty successful plural marriages (Joseph F Smith comes to mind) and some disastrous ones (Orson Pratt comes to mind) but by and large I see it as something that was just doomed to fail over time.

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I personally don't see any place for polygamy in the modern world. Anciently, most, if not all kings had multiple sexual partners (wives, concubines, mistresses, whatever) because they were kings and needed lots of children for dynastic purposes. That's just how it was done. I don't see anything spiritual about it. Even when it was practiced ideally in our church it was problematic. The first wife was supposed to give her approval, but that automatically sets up a hierarchy among the women. Its much more equitable if every wife gives her approval (like tv's sister wives.) I think there were some pretty successful plural marriages (Joseph F Smith comes to mind) and some disastrous ones (Orson Pratt comes to mind) but by and large I see it as something that was just doomed to fail over time.

The bad fruit of FLDS polygamy came from Joseph Smith establishing polygamy in the first place. Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping/raping stemmed from polygamy, her kidnapper (who was LDS) believed in having wives and he chose to take a young one. 

The FLDS have a birth defects pervading the towns that are heavily populated by FLDS, stemming from incest. There has been mention of it in recent news. But here is an article in the DN about the problem. I see many bad fruit from polygamy, how can anyone deny it? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635182923/Birth-defect-is-plaguing-children-in-FLDS-towns.html

I know there are families that the bad fruit doesn't necessarily touch, but I still have issues with it being started to begin with.

Do not throw in Hitler, criminals, or crazy people to score points. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

Joseph Smith didn't invent polygamy. Plus you get the same birth defects in any small group of isolated people.

[katherine the great]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 The FLDS have a birth defects pervading the towns that are heavily populated by FLDS, stemming from incest. There has been mention of it in recent news. But here is an article in the DN about the problem. I see many bad fruit from polygamy, how can anyone deny it? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635182923/Birth-defect-is-plaguing-children-in-FLDS-towns.html

I know there are families that the bad fruit doesn't necessarily touch, but I still have issues with it being started to begin with.

 

Yes, the health problems are something that are rarely discussed. The Amish face a similar problem with many instances of polydactyly and the related health issues.  This is more a result of isolated, endogamous societies like the sometimesaint mentioned than it is of plural marriage in general. "Marrying out" is always healthier than generations of marrying in. 

[Jeanne]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The bad fruit of FLDS polygamy came from Joseph Smith establishing polygamy in the first place. Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping/raping stemmed from polygamy, her kidnapper (who was LDS) believed in having wives and he chose to take a young one. 

The FLDS have a birth defects pervading the towns that are heavily populated by FLDS, stemming from incest. There has been mention of it in recent news. But here is an article in the DN about the problem. I see many bad fruit from polygamy, how can anyone deny it? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635182923/Birth-defect-is-plaguing-children-in-FLDS-towns.html

I know there are families that the bad fruit doesn't necessarily touch, but I still have issues with it being started to begin with.

 

Big rep point here!!

[Tacenda]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/polygamy-should-never-be-linked-with-religious-freedom/article35833293/

Another bad fruit from the "in the name of God" tree....

Polygamy should never be linked with religious freedom

The verdict is in and polygamy is out for former bishops Winston Blackmore and James Oler of the fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints community in Bountiful, B.C.

Justice Sheri Ann Donegan ruled to uphold section 293 of the Criminal Code, which outlaws polygamy, and the offenders could face up to five years imprisonment for their multiple marrying ways.

The gloves are off now as both Mr. Blackmore, who has 24 wives, and Mr. Oler, who has five, intend to argue that their religious practices, which harm women and children through polygamy, should be protected under constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

This matters to far more than a hidden-away community in southern British Columbia. Polygamy is actively practised across Canada by religious minorities. It's not a private crime, but because of its hidden nature, we have little idea of the victimization of women and girls in polygamy. The fact that it takes escape or a hearing before a judge for us to find out the realities of polygamy should have us on alert to letting this crime pass under religious freedom accommodation.

The 2011 B.C. legal challenge that upheld Canada's polygamy law put on record a scientific study led by University of British Columbia professor Joseph Henrich that detailed how polygamy increases sexual abuse, domestic violence, crime, substance abuse, higher infant and child mortality rates and intra-household conflict. It found polygamy decreased women's rights because, in polygynous societies, women are seen as a commodity to be attained. The heartbreaking testimony of freedom lost under the lie of religion was summed up for me in an earlier interview I did with polygamy victim Irene Spencer.

"I looked around me and I had been threatened all my life that I would go directly to hell if I didn't live polygamy and all of a sudden I woke up and realized that I already was in hell; they couldn't send me any place any darker or further, I was in despair and hopelessness. And around me I saw many women that had nervous breakdowns. I have nine nieces and nephews and one first cousin that have committed suicide and when you see the despair and the heartache, and I myself succumbed to a nervous breakdown and reached the lowest point in my life…" Ms. Spencer said in that interview. Ms. Spencer went on to escape being one of nine wives and wrote her story in Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife. She passed away earlier this year, but not before following Canada's debate on whether reasonable accommodation in the Canadian Constitution should be interpreted to allow religious people to hold more than one wife.

"It's abuse when young girls are told who they have to marry and they marry men old enough to be their fathers or their grandfathers. And it's abuse when mothers and daughters are married to the same man. And it's abuse when these children have no education. They run the boys out of town so the older men can marry the younger women," Ms. Spencer said.

If polygamy is an expression allowed because of the religious freedom we cherish, one has to ask, how can the social harm of polygamy be considered reasonably justified? The short answer is: It can't. As part of religious freedom laws in Canada there are limits based on the notion of reasonable accommodation as it relates to public interest. Doing no harm to the vulnerable should always trump religious freedom. Normally I find myself fighting for religious freedom, but when freedoms start to hurt others, that's when we reach for the greater good of love moving through law to protect those who need it most.

 

[Kenngo1969]

Let's deconstruct the .... ummm ... logic being employed here, such as it is.

P1: Bad people have done bad things in the name of religion.

C: Therefore, religion is bad.

Yep!  Sure enough!  Airtight!  No holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through in that argument!  

[Kenngo1969]

23 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Big rep point here!!

I love you, but your logic sucks.

[Jeanne]

34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I love you, but your logic sucks.

I love you but...Ouch!!

[Jeanne]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/polygamy-should-never-be-linked-with-religious-freedom/article35833293/

Another bad fruit from the "in the name of God" tree....

Polygamy should never be linked with religious freedom

The verdict is in and polygamy is out for former bishops Winston Blackmore and James Oler of the fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints community in Bountiful, B.C.

Justice Sheri Ann Donegan ruled to uphold section 293 of the Criminal Code, which outlaws polygamy, and the offenders could face up to five years imprisonment for their multiple marrying ways.

The gloves are off now as both Mr. Blackmore, who has 24 wives, and Mr. Oler, who has five, intend to argue that their religious practices, which harm women and children through polygamy, should be protected under constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

This matters to far more than a hidden-away community in southern British Columbia. Polygamy is actively practised across Canada by religious minorities. It's not a private crime, but because of its hidden nature, we have little idea of the victimization of women and girls in polygamy. The fact that it takes escape or a hearing before a judge for us to find out the realities of polygamy should have us on alert to letting this crime pass under religious freedom accommodation.

The 2011 B.C. legal challenge that upheld Canada's polygamy law put on record a scientific study led by University of British Columbia professor Joseph Henrich that detailed how polygamy increases sexual abuse, domestic violence, crime, substance abuse, higher infant and child mortality rates and intra-household conflict. It found polygamy decreased women's rights because, in polygynous societies, women are seen as a commodity to be attained. The heartbreaking testimony of freedom lost under the lie of religion was summed up for me in an earlier interview I did with polygamy victim Irene Spencer.

"I looked around me and I had been threatened all my life that I would go directly to hell if I didn't live polygamy and all of a sudden I woke up and realized that I already was in hell; they couldn't send me any place any darker or further, I was in despair and hopelessness. And around me I saw many women that had nervous breakdowns. I have nine nieces and nephews and one first cousin that have committed suicide and when you see the despair and the heartache, and I myself succumbed to a nervous breakdown and reached the lowest point in my life…" Ms. Spencer said in that interview. Ms. Spencer went on to escape being one of nine wives and wrote her story in Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife. She passed away earlier this year, but not before following Canada's debate on whether reasonable accommodation in the Canadian Constitution should be interpreted to allow religious people to hold more than one wife.

"It's abuse when young girls are told who they have to marry and they marry men old enough to be their fathers or their grandfathers. And it's abuse when mothers and daughters are married to the same man. And it's abuse when these children have no education. They run the boys out of town so the older men can marry the younger women," Ms. Spencer said.

If polygamy is an expression allowed because of the religious freedom we cherish, one has to ask, how can the social harm of polygamy be considered reasonably justified? The short answer is: It can't. As part of religious freedom laws in Canada there are limits based on the notion of reasonable accommodation as it relates to public interest. Doing no harm to the vulnerable should always trump religious freedom. Normally I find myself fighting for religious freedom, but when freedoms start to hurt others, that's when we reach for the greater good of love moving through law to protect those who need it most.

 

another rep point...a big one!  This pretty well sums up the very non positive aspects of polygamy. This isn't just bad fruit...darn near rotten!

Edited July 31, 2017 by Jeanne

[Daniel2]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 7:51 PM, Tacenda said:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/polygamy-should-never-be-linked-with-religious-freedom/article35833293/

Another bad fruit from the "in the name of God" tree....

Polygamy should never be linked with religious freedom

The verdict is in and polygamy is out for former bishops Winston Blackmore and James Oler of the fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints community in Bountiful, B.C.

Justice Sheri Ann Donegan ruled to uphold section 293 of the Criminal Code, which outlaws polygamy, and the offenders could face up to five years imprisonment for their multiple marrying ways.

The gloves are off now as both Mr. Blackmore, who has 24 wives, and Mr. Oler, who has five, intend to argue that their religious practices, which harm women and children through polygamy, should be protected under constitutional rights to freedom of religion.

This matters to far more than a hidden-away community in southern British Columbia. Polygamy is actively practised across Canada by religious minorities. It's not a private crime, but because of its hidden nature, we have little idea of the victimization of women and girls in polygamy. The fact that it takes escape or a hearing before a judge for us to find out the realities of polygamy should have us on alert to letting this crime pass under religious freedom accommodation.

The 2011 B.C. legal challenge that upheld Canada's polygamy law put on record a scientific study led by University of British Columbia professor Joseph Henrich that detailed how polygamy increases sexual abuse, domestic violence, crime, substance abuse, higher infant and child mortality rates and intra-household conflict. It found polygamy decreased women's rights because, in polygynous societies, women are seen as a commodity to be attained. The heartbreaking testimony of freedom lost under the lie of religion was summed up for me in an earlier interview I did with polygamy victim Irene Spencer.

"I looked around me and I had been threatened all my life that I would go directly to hell if I didn't live polygamy and all of a sudden I woke up and realized that I already was in hell; they couldn't send me any place any darker or further, I was in despair and hopelessness. And around me I saw many women that had nervous breakdowns. I have nine nieces and nephews and one first cousin that have committed suicide and when you see the despair and the heartache, and I myself succumbed to a nervous breakdown and reached the lowest point in my life…" Ms. Spencer said in that interview. Ms. Spencer went on to escape being one of nine wives and wrote her story in Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife. She passed away earlier this year, but not before following Canada's debate on whether reasonable accommodation in the Canadian Constitution should be interpreted to allow religious people to hold more than one wife.

"It's abuse when young girls are told who they have to marry and they marry men old enough to be their fathers or their grandfathers. And it's abuse when mothers and daughters are married to the same man. And it's abuse when these children have no education. They run the boys out of town so the older men can marry the younger women," Ms. Spencer said.

If polygamy is an expression allowed because of the religious freedom we cherish, one has to ask, how can the social harm of polygamy be considered reasonably justified? The short answer is: It can't. As part of religious freedom laws in Canada there are limits based on the notion of reasonable accommodation as it relates to public interest. Doing no harm to the vulnerable should always trump religious freedom. Normally I find myself fighting for religious freedom, but when freedoms start to hurt others, that's when we reach for the greater good of love moving through law to protect those who need it most.

 

While I denounce and oppose abuse in all it's forms (and especially child, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, as well as the victimization and exploitation of women and children), including those mentioned in the above article, I believe the title of the article and it's conclusion---that "polygamy should never be linked to religious freedom"--is flawed and unconstitutional.

There is no doubt that many (and probably even most) polygamist societies are prone to abusive practices and manipulation by corrupt men in power who disregard laws protecting women and children, in particular, those that are insular and view external authority as something to be feared.

However, the failure of these societies isn't indicative that ALL polygamist marriages will inherently follow suit.

I am a former employee of an international multi-million dollar dental manufacturing company that was formed in Utah by a former FLDS polygamist.  After being commanded to marry three women and fathering children in the double digits, the founder of this company recognized that the coercive and abusive form of polygamy his religion advocated was untenable and unworkable.  He left the FLDS faith, divorced two of his wives while continuing to support all his children according to his paternal obligations, and became an outspoken opponent of the type of polygamy your article mentions, Tacenda.  He founded the Lost Boys, a non-profit organization to help individuals who leave Mormon Fundamentalism to get an education and have a place to live (he literally built an apartment complex on his 5 acre home lot where he and his wife provide safe haven for women, children, and young men leaving the polygamist lifestyle behind).  He formed The Diversity Foundation to promote tolerance of those who may not be like us across his world wide business ventures.  He has been an outspoken critic of Jeffs, both socially and even in the courtroom, due to his personal first-hand knowledge and has faced fierce retaliation, including death threats and character-assassination, from his former FLDS community.  Today, he no longer believes in God nor organized religion, and when asked about what his religious views are, he says, "I agree with the concept I first heard from the Dahli Llama: today, my religion is kindness."

Despite his fierce opposition to the polygamy practiced by the FLDS groups, and despite his ongoing activism in helping members flee such abusive communities, and despite his personal choice and resolve that monogamy is best for he and his family, this amazing man, former employer, and friend of mine remains committed to respecting non-abusive polygamist marriages within employees of his own company.  That is, there ARE far more progressive Mormon Fundamentalist sects who believe in educating the women and children within their communities just as they do the men, who all dress in modern clothes (pants, 'typical' modern hairstyles, etc.), who support some wives working and some wives staying home, who believe that marriages are formed within their polygamist Faiths as a matter of personal prayer and revelation between husband and wives after periods of dating and courtship, who don't forfeit their spouse or children due to an Elder's whims or conditions, who don't marry underage girls, who don't endorse rape, who don't endorse abuse, etc. etc. etc.  These individuals are educated, self-aware, and earnest in their desire to live as they believe God commanded them, and are horrified by the abusive practices that corrupt men who have tainted what they believe is a higher form of Celestial Marriage.  They read The Book of Mormon, hold primary, young women and men, Priesthood, Relief Society, etc. 

As a former-LDS gay man, I interacted with many such individuals within the company (though they are not a majority in the company, there are enough to be significant and to get to speak with several men and women who hold such beliefs), and I participated in many conversations with them over periods of years in which we all understood the irony of being "marital minorities," and how if the Constitution of the United States truly protects the religious and civil liberties of all, at some point we both shared our hopes that freedom would prevail for both marriages between same-sex couples and for peaceful, non-abusive polygamists who are trying to follow their religious convictions.

The abusive problems of women, children, and any of our societies' most vulnerable that accompany the types of polygamy you've described cannot and should never be ignored nor excused in the name of religion--but in the name of religious freedom, I believe it's unjust to suggest that all polygamy inherently leads to abuse--especially for anyone who is an active, believing Latter-day Saint (otherwise, how could one ever justify God commanding something that is "inherently abusive" towards women and children in the first place?  Surely that is an indication that God feels there's a form of polygamy that isn't, at least, if you're LDS).

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

While I denounce and oppose abuse in all it's forms (and especially child, sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, as well as the victimization and exploitation of women and children), including those mentioned in the above article, I believe the title of the article and it's conclusion---that "polygamy should never be linked to religious freedom"--is flawed and unconstitutional.

There is no doubt that many (and probably even most) polygamist societies are prone to abusive practices and manipulation by corrupt men in power who disregard laws protecting women and children, in particular, those that are insular and view external authority as something to be feared.

However, the failure of these societies isn't indicative that ALL polygamist marriages will inherently follow suit.

I am a former employee of an international multi-million dollar dental manufacturing company that was formed in Utah by a former FLDS polygamist.  After being commanded to marry three women and fathering children in the double digits, the founder of this company recognized that the coercive and abusive form of polygamy his religion advocated was untenable and unworkable.  He left the FLDS faith, divorced two of his wives while continuing to support all his children according to his paternal obligations, and became an outspoken opponent of the type of polygamy your article mentions, Tacenda.  He founded the Lost Boys, a non-profit organization to help individuals who leave Mormon Fundamentalism to get an education and have a place to live (he literally built an apartment complex on his 5 acre home lot where he and his wife provide safe haven for women, children, and young men leaving the polygamist lifestyle behind).  He formed The Diversity Foundation to promote tolerance of those who may not be like us across his world wide business ventures.  He has been an outspoken critic of Jeffs, both socially and even in the courtroom, due to his personal first-hand knowledge and has faced fierce retaliation, including death threats and character-assassination, from his former FLDS community.  Today, he no longer believes in God nor organized religion, and when asked about what his religious views are, he says, "I agree with the concept I first heard from the Dahli Llama: today, my religion is kindness."

Despite his fierce opposition to the polygamy practiced by the FLDS groups, and despite his ongoing activism in helping members flee such abusive communities, and despite his personal choice and resolve that monogamy is best for he and his family, this amazing man, former employer, and friend of mine remains committed to respecting non-abusive polygamist marriages within employees of his own company.  That is, there ARE far more progressive Mormon Fundamentalist sects who believe in educating the women and children within their communities just as they do the men, who all dress in modern clothes (pants, 'typical' modern hairstyles, etc.), who support some wives working and some wives staying home, who believe that marriages are formed within their polygamist Faiths as a matter of personal prayer and revelation between husband and wives after periods of dating and courtship, who don't forfeit their spouse or children due to an Elder's whims or conditions, who don't marry underage girls, who don't endorse rape, who don't endorse abuse, etc. etc. etc.  These individuals are educated, self-aware, and earnest in their desire to live as they believe God commanded them, and are horrified by the abusive practices that corrupt men who have tainted what they believe is a higher form of Celestial Marriage.  They read The Book of Mormon, hold primary, young women and men, Priesthood, Relief Society, etc. 

As a former-LDS gay man, I interacted with many such individuals within the company (though they are not a majority in the company, there are enough to be significant and to get to speak with several men and women who hold such beliefs), and I participated in many conversations with them over periods of years in which we all understood the irony of being "marital minorities," and how if the Constitution of the United States truly protects the religious and civil liberties of all, at some point we both shared our hopes that freedom would prevail for both marriages between same-sex couples and for peaceful, non-abusive polygamists who are trying to follow their religious convictions.

The abusive problems of women, children, and any of our societies' most vulnerable that accompany the types of polygamy you've described cannot and should never be ignored nor excused in the name of religion--but in the name of religious freedom, I believe it's unjust to suggest that all polygamy inherently leads to abuse--especially for anyone who is an active, believing Latter-day Saint (otherwise, how could one ever justify God commanding something that is "inherently abusive" towards women and children in the first place?  Surely that is an indication that God feels there's a form of polygamy that isn't, at least, if you're LDS).

 

Daniel2, I guess this article really wasn't very well rounded and they are just concentrating on the abusive side. When I watch "Sister Wives", I feel like I'm watching a family in the local LDS ward, except I don't think they believe in the WoW like regular LDS.

I don't know if you know, but my niece on my husband's side married a man that grew up in a polygamist family. They aren't like the FLDS, but he did know the families that lived in Colorado City and remembered it wasn't so bad years ago. He joined the LDS church and served a mission. I'd love to hear about his life growing up in a polygamist family, he's one I kind of envy, he has a large family and they do seem happy, like the Kody Brown family.

I probably appear to have a multi-personality problem with how I'm supportive in one way and angry-mad about it in another way.

 

 

[Tacenda]

Daniel 2, I need to add that I neglected to mention how awesome I think your friend is! 

[Daniel2]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Daniel2, I guess this article really wasn't very well rounded and they are just concentrating on the abusive side. When I watch "Sister Wives", I feel like I'm watching a family in the local LDS ward, except I don't think they believe in the WoW like regular LDS.

I don't know if you know, but my niece on my husband's side married a man that grew up in a polygamist family. They aren't like the FLDS, but he did know the families that lived in Colorado City and remembered it wasn't so bad years ago. He joined the LDS church and served a mission. I'd love to hear about his life growing up in a polygamist family, he's one I kind of envy, he has a large family and they do seem happy, like the Kody Brown family.

I probably appear to have a multi-personality problem with how I'm supportive in one way and angry-mad about it in another way.

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Daniel 2, I need to add that I neglected to mention how awesome I think your friend is! 

Thanks for the clarifications, Tacenda. 

And I agree... my friend (and former employer) is an amazing and inspirational man.

[Kenngo1969]

18 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

... The abusive problems of women, children, and any of our societies' most vulnerable that accompany the types of polygamy you've described cannot and should never be ignored nor excused in the name of religion--but in the name of religious freedom, I believe it's unjust to suggest that all polygamy inherently leads to abuse--especially for anyone who is an active, believing Latter-day Saint (otherwise, how could one ever justify God commanding something that is "inherently abusive" towards women and children in the first place?  Surely that is an indication that God feels there's a form of polygamy that isn't, at least, if you're LDS).

 

Quoted for truth.  That is all.