From time to time I see complaints that the Church should be much more proactive and vocal in trying to root out the practice of polygamy. The latest example is from today’s Deseret News.
What are your thoughts about this? What responsibility rests on the Church’s shoulders given its historic practice of polygamy? What is its moral culpability? If it has some, what practically could and should it do? Is there a difference between the Church’s preference for quiet, local actions as opposed to the demands for vocal, centralized actions?
May 13, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I don’t see a responsibility or culpability, I just see an opportunity to be of service. Not in any force or opposition, but in loving and serving the “lost boys” or wives fleeing forced marriages or other refugees from that lifestyle.
We could do a lot to help if we turned our attention to those who find themselves in those situations. Knowing there was a place to seek help would go a long way to helping those who feel trapped in the polygamous societies and want to get out.
May 13, 2007 at 2:32 pm
From the article:
Schmidt recently sent a letter to LDS Church leaders, asking the church to step forward and provide financial support and resources to women and children leaving polygamy.
A cynic would say it’s all about tapping into the financial resources. Is this the start of a call for reparations to polygamist survivors? But I’m not a cynic, at least not today.
What what is she proposing? Possibly:
1. Employment assistance
2. Housing assistance
3. Educational assistance
4. Counseling
5. Money for misc “get on your feet” costs
All valid possibilities.
Currently, the Church has programs in place through wards and stakes to provide assistance for all of the above.
But, it sounds like Schmidt is asking for some other direct sort of support, perhaps a program directly managed by Salt Lake.
I guess I’ll have to get a better idea what her exact proposal — if she has one. A cynic might say this is an attempt to blame the Church for not helping those that aren’t even members of the Church.
It does raise the question as to how much one can continue to blame the Church for polygamy. Anyone who is currently alive and suffering from the effects of polygamy has been living in a time when the Church has been extraordinarily clear about its stance on polygamy. At some point, the Church *has* to be off the hook.
So for right now, my answer would be — contact the local ward and stake (that they’ve rejected to now) and they can help them with their needs (but to not expect a handout).
May 13, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Here is a barely related question: What percentage of people (men and women) that leave polygamy join the mainstream LDS church? My guess is that not many do.
May 13, 2007 at 8:44 pm
vocal, centralized actions may put the focus of the church back where it doesn’t want it.
i cant say if a responsibility exists for the church to have a centralized effort. i don’t know. it seems unfair to put the burden on church members today who have had nothing to do with polygamy other than being descendants of it.
getting every and any faiths involved in helping out polygamy victims seems to be more reasonable. i think it’s a problem that anyone can be sympathetic to.
May 13, 2007 at 8:54 pm
#2 perhaps she is proposing ’safe harbour’… “If I escape from my polygamous community and make it to an LDS church will you protect me from the mob” kind of deal.
May 13, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Has Schmidt been taking lessons from Sharpton?
May 13, 2007 at 10:10 pm
The Church should stay out of it. How long has it been since the Church was out of the polygamy business. Time to give the whole thing a rest. I’m over it.
May 13, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I’m not sure the LDS church owes them anything but it would be nice if it were offered, for people to take if they wanted it. Connections, a job, counseling whatever. Maybe a nice card that says we’re sorry you were born into an offshoot of Mormonism that still believes in polygamy. We were there once too but we can’t remember it so well.
Maybe put a ribbon on the card.
May 14, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Maybe the Church should once again encourage another “Operation Seagull” to help all these poor, trapped, plural wives.
May 14, 2007 at 7:52 pm
To do so, the church would have to publicly take a stand AGAINST polygamy, which isn’t really the gig they’ve been playing. All I hear is “that’s in our past.”
May 15, 2007 at 12:24 am
As a missionary serving in St. George Utah, I taught a number of people (young men, women and their children) who had left polygamy (colorado city). What I didn’t realize was that amid the lifestyle they live, they are taught the fundamental principles of the gospel including the truth about the BOM. They read it (often more vigorously than our own youth do) and gain a real witness from the Spirit. So after they realize they want to leave polygamy, they immediately want to investigate the church because they retain their fundamental testimonies of the restored gospel. What I saw was the members embracing them like they would any other person learning about the church (thankfully in this case it was a Stake of loving inclusive lds). I once taught a family of 6 children and their mother who had recently left polygamy. The ward they lived in was a great strength to them. The sad part of the story is that the mother later died of cancer and the polygamist father kidnapped a couple of the kids. There are crazy things going on in the Utah desert.
May 15, 2007 at 9:45 am
Alison,
I believe Gordon B. Hinckley couldn’t have renounced the law of Celestial plural marriage any more forcibly than he did on Larry King.
“I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.”
cj,
It is sad when the only surviving parent wants to raise their own child. If only the government would step in and sever the parental rights of these fathers. Why don’t we have any political leaders as couragous as the great Gov. Pyle. He was willing to use the full force of the government to crush these polygamist families. I just don’t understand why these polygamist think they have a legal right to their religious beliefs. Polygamist today should be treated no differently than the polygamist in the 1800’s.
May 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“What responsibility rests on the Church’s shoulders given its historic practice of polygamy? What is its moral culpability?”
No culpability whatsoever.
Polygamy remains a doctrine of the Church; it isn’t wrong to practice polygamy. Those who believe that D&C 132 is inspired, must accept that polygamy is not intrinsically immoral and that it is sometimes commanded by God.
So, the church is not guilty of any wrongdoing, because polygamy is not inherently immoral (though its practitioners may sometimes be abusive).
May 15, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Amanda,
Either you have a drier sense of humor than i do or you’ve got me all wrong?
May 15, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I was wondering about Amanda’s sense of humor myself.
May 15, 2007 at 6:22 pm
#11 — I proselyted in Salt Lake City and know of a few former polygamists who wanted to join our church. An apostle had to conduct the baptismal interview.
May 15, 2007 at 6:23 pm
(children of polygamists)
May 16, 2007 at 10:13 am
cj,
I have a very dry sense of humor.
May 16, 2007 at 10:17 am
Joanne,
That’s my understanding as well. The children of polygamist are treated about the same as murderers. Special permission is required for baptism or admittance to church schools.
May 16, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I provide medical services to the residents in Colorado City and Hilldale, on an interim basis. On a recent visit I met a 16 year old girl who had just given birth to her first child. This child/mother presented with severe depression (not typical post partum depression) and anxiety, which I hope will resolve with prescription anti-depressants.
My hope holds little promise, however, as the root cause(s) of her depression lie beyond biologic/cell mechanisms of action. You can think of as many reasons for her depression as I can.
In telling my spouse about this lovely young lady, I wept. I will likely forget the exact words this patient used in describing her condition, but I will never forget her look of terrible despair, the co-mingling of hopelessness and thougts of suicide.
Kevin, here are my suggestions on what the Church could/should do:
1: President Hinkley should revise his Larry King statement to read: “It’s not doctrinal now, and never was.” The word “think” must be deleted from his original statement. No dissembling here.
2. Remove section 132 from the D&C immediately. Removal will eliminate the possibility of the return of this barbaric practice, thus protecting our daughters and wives.
3. Add another “manifesto” to the D&C which states that polygamy, while practiced in the 19th century, has been determined to be an abomination, consistent with the teachings of The Book of Mormon. Further, that polygamy should never have been instituted in the first place.
May 16, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Lonny, I respect your opinion and your experience, but I don’t agree with #2 and cannot accept #3. Again, denying polygamy based on the Book of Mormon is simplistic and incorrect, given the explicit disclaimer it contains. Having said that, thank you for your contribution to this thread and for your work among the populations you serve.
May 16, 2007 at 11:41 pm
By the way, Lonny, your use of the term “barbaric” and the quotation marks for “manifesto” are enlightening.
May 17, 2007 at 12:17 am
I’m wondering if maybe there are other versions of “polygamy” than the one you have had experience with, Lonny, that could possibly add another dimension to your understanding of this practice.
I’m no apologist for the practice, mind you, but I wouldn’t presume to condemn all instances of it based on an experience with a fundamentalist group which, by definition, is outside the sanction of the Church.
In other words, I’m broad-minded enough to think that if a practice is ordained by God it just might have different effects than if it is instituted and operated completely by men.
A good example is the United Order. I presume that when and if this system is instituted by God, it will run successfully, even if not always smoothly. If instituted by men, forget it.
May 17, 2007 at 12:23 am
.
Oh. my. achin. stomach. I keep going back to this comment and laughing until I cry.
May 17, 2007 at 8:57 am
TO MCQ,
Polygamy and the United Order/Communism)are lived today, and there are relatively successful models of each.
The United Order, as ordained by God, and promoted by LDS prophets was lived/practiced in southern Utah in a town called Orderville. It was the most successful model of any of the communities that practiced the United Order form of communism in the 19th century. It failed, despite the Church’s and residents’ best intentions.
LDS polygamy, the form taught by Joseph, required that a man take as many wives as possible to ensure his and his family’s optimal eternal reward.
Birth statistics indicate that in any year group of any significant population size (The population size must be large enough to allow for statistcal significance) 50% will be female, and of course 50% male. To practice the LDS, God ordained model of polygamy, only 25% of males will be successful if they take just 2 wives. This means that the remaining 75% of Mormon males will not enjoy their promised eternal reward, as women from their age cohort (or near it) will be out of the marriage market, as they will be married eternally to someone else. There’s no one else to marry, unless you go to younger, and then younger again cohorts These are the brutal mathematics of enforced polygamy, as practiced today by the Fundamentalists under a theocracy.
Consider the plight of a 25 year old Elder competing for a mate of his age cohort. Females will likely be attracted to more mature/older cohort males holding higher, more elite Priesthood offices, thus allowing a greater chance of exhaltation.
The God of Joseph’s polygamy, who wants to bring about the eternal life of all men, has a pre-determined failure rate of at least 75%. Something is wrong with Joseph’s math, as God wants all to succeed in returning to him with fullest glory.
Given these outcome criteria, polygamy is a purely evil abomination, Book of Mormon doctrine aside. President Hinkley knows these failure outcomes, That’s why he says he “thinks” its not doctrinal. Again, God wants all his children to return to him, not just the 25% or fewer who were able to secure 2 or more wives at the expense of others.
The polygamy marriage model will be successful by those who chose to live it voluntarily, and not by force, and outside the boundaries of a theocracy.
May 17, 2007 at 10:12 am
Lonny,
You are right that births are split about 50/50, but how many of those boys will grow up to be good eligible husbands? In 2001, there were 588,490 female victims of domestic violence. Those are just the reported cases! Would you want your daughters to marry the men that beat those women? In 2005, there were over 2 million men in Federal or State prisons or in local jails. While I’m sure that not all those inmates are bad people, would you want your daughters to marry from that pool of men?
Not all men want to be good husbands and good fathers. Why should women be forced to choose from the bad apples?
May 17, 2007 at 10:20 am
We don’t believe what we see; we see what we believe. That’s all I have to say about that.
May 17, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Amanda,
You are correct. 75% of all Mormon men, especially returned missionaries, should not only be in jail, but be prevented from breeding.
Please write a letter to President Hinkley asking permission to be sealed to him or another General Authority. They are the only ones righteous enough for many Mormon women, or so it seems.
Polygamy was instituted, in large part, to bring about a righteous progeny, with born-under-the-covenant blessings associated with the Melchizedek Priesthood. Children born of these unions would be sealed or connected back to God via an unbroken line of Priesthood lineage, thus restoring what should have continued since the Garden of Eden. 19th century polygamy would have secured a great victory for the Church in terms of providing a very righteous, Priesthood holding generation to greet Jesus upon his glorious return to earth.
Those responsible for LDS polygamy believed in the poetry of this doctrine, and Jesus’ long awaited return to a righteous welcoming committee. But Jesus didn’t return as anticipated, and the promise of polygamy’s victory quickly turned into the “agony of defeat”, succombing to the unrelenting and unforgiving mechanics of economics. Polygamy, like Soviet style communism sounds good in theory, but is doomed to defeat – beyond a few years – from the outset.
Polygamy brought about elitism. The Church reports that polygamy was practiced by only a few. This is most correct, as the number of polygamists is limited to the number of eligable females. And it was never about increasing the number of children, although one would think so. What it was concerned about is increasing the number of “worthy” children having a Priesthood lineage or connection (sealing) back to God. Who better to produce such children of worthy linage than high ranking Church Authorities? Moreover, righteous men holding the MPriesthood eventually found the promise of Mormonism to be empty, pre-empted to failure by the very men who told them to keep the commandments.
Bring your camera
May 18, 2007 at 2:32 am
Dialogue: “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, esp. a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.” or “to discuss areas of disagreement frankly in order to resolve them”
Lonny, I understand completely that we (all of the bloggers who comment here) might not be able to reach a full agreement/settlement on many things we discuss (to “resolve them”), but I would like to fulfill at least the “amicable” portion of the definition. I respect your right to have your opinion, but your tone is anything but amicable and cannot produce true dialogue in its ennobling sense.
We actually agree on some key points, but our conclusions simply are diametrically opposed. I have tried to be civil and learn from your comments. I mean that sincerely. However, I will not respond to continuous monologue-like diatribes that do not reflect an attempt on your part to grant me the same courtesy.
Good night.
May 18, 2007 at 9:02 am
Lonny,
Did I say that 75% of Mormon men, especially return missionaries, should be thrown in jail and prevented from breeding, or are you just putting words in my mouth? Why do you feel the need to do that?
May 18, 2007 at 9:25 am
Amanda, Lonny and others like him find it easier and more fulfilling to have discussions with themselves than with others. It’s like a medical condition, one that we can only hope he overcomes.