1,000 "Surplus" Boys Expelled from Mormon Sect

[stumbler]

Boy, this thread got sidetracked!

Tmaque:

Polygamy should not be a crime if it’s between consenting adults. It’s nobody’s business what goes on in the bedroom of willing adults who claim to be following their religion.

I don’t agree for a couple reasons:

1 - The reason I posted this thread was to point out the inherent instability of polygamous (or rather, polygynous) communities. If there are 3 wives for every married male, that means that approximately two-thirds of all males are surplus. The various “solutions” that have been tried for this dilemma are not pretty.

2 - What goes on in the bedroom has consequences – major societal consequences. Results such as increased levels of AIDS, STDs, illegitimate children, handicapped children. etc. are all “costs” that society at large has to bear. Legally and morally, the government has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect it’s citizens and society at large. Just as smoking is being outlawed because of its long-term health costs, so too could sexual activity. The old truism about “keeping government Peeping Toms out of the bedroom” may be clever, but not very sensible.

Your scenario seems to describe license, not liberty. In a purely Christian (but these days one really needs to say “orthodox Catholic”) community, such monitoring would be essentially unnecessary. In a licentious community, the bedroom is ground zero for society’s destruction.

Tmaque:

Laws against sodomy are still on the books in Utah but there’s nary a word about prosecuting homosexuals. Why is this? It’s because it’s politically correct to prosecute polygamists and politically incorrect to even criticize homosexuality at all. Prosecution of polygamists just because “it’s the law” is cowardice at it’s worse.

Failure in one area is not an excuse or justification to fail in another.

Enlighten me regarding prosecution of polygamy. The random bits of news I have seen all suggest a relatively “hands-off” approach to polygamy (polygyny) in Utah. Only when incidents such as the “Lost boys” hits the news have I seen law enforcement step into action. If it were otherwise, FLDS would have been shut down a long time ago, no?

 

[UtahMaggie]

stumbler:

Enlighten me regarding prosecution of polygamy. The random bits of news I have seen all suggest a relatively “hands-off” approach to polygamy (polygyny) in Utah. Only when incidents such as the “Lost boys” hits the news have I seen law enforcement step into action. If it were otherwise, FLDS would have been shut down a long time ago, no?

The attorney general of Utah stated this last week that one of the reasons they don’t go after polygamists is because we don’t have the resources to care for all the children. The only time anything is really done is if a girl of 14 is married off or if there are allegations of abuse. But prosecuting polygamy itself is rarely done.

 

[stumbler]

I assume you live in Utah, Maggie.

Is it fair to say the Mormons (and I assume many, indeed most, of the state apparatus is populated with Mormons) are ambivalent about prosecuting polygamy (polygyny)? The “no money” excuse sounds more like a rationalization than an impediment.

 

[Tmaque]

stumbler:

Boy, this thread got sidetracked!
I don’t agree for a couple reasons:

1 - The reason I posted this thread was to point out the inherent instability of polygamous (or rather, polygynous) communities. If there are 3 wives for every married male, that means that approximately two-thirds of all males are surplus. The various “solutions” that have been tried for this dilemma are not pretty.

2 - What goes on in the bedroom has consequences – major societal consequences. Results such as increased levels of AIDS, STDs, illegitimate children, handicapped children. etc. are all “costs” that society at large has to bear. Legally and morally, the government has the right, indeed the obligation, to protect it’s citizens and society at large. Just as smoking is being outlawed because of its long-term health costs, so too could sexual activity. The old truism about “keeping government Peeping Toms out of the bedroom” may be clever, but not very sensible.

Your scenario seems to describe license, not liberty. In a purely Christian (but these days one really needs to say “orthodox Catholic”) community, such monitoring would be essentially unnecessary. In a licentious community, the bedroom is ground zero for society’s destruction.

Why is polygamy the only “lifestyle” being prosecuted? People that “swing” (married couples with mulitple sex partners) are not prosecuted. If a group of 5 bisexuals wanted to live together no one would suggest they go to jail. No one is suggesting that we sterilize or lock up women who have child after child after child out of wedlock, each one from a different father. All of these things cause harm to society yet polygamy is the only lifestyle being singled out. All I want is a little consistency. If we can tell people what sort of relationships they can have, if that’s really an option, then lets ban all of these “perverted” ways of living.

stumbler:

Failure in one area is not an excuse or justification to fail in another.

It’s not about failure. Do you honestly believe that if this group was Muslim they would be prosecuted? It’s politically incorrect to condemn Muslim polygamy, perfectly fine to condemn LDS polygamy. If there is a crime against a minor then prosecute that crime, by all means. But it should not be crime for two adult women to share the same man if they so desire. It happens all the time in this world. Many men have mistresses, even have children with them, and the men don’t get prosecuted simply because they don’t call it polygamy. If it’s wrong then prosecute EVERYONE that does it. Don’t single out one group of people because it gets you on the 10:00 news.

stumbler:

Enlighten me regarding prosecution of polygamy. The random bits of news I have seen all suggest a relatively “hands-off” approach to polygamy (polygyny) in Utah. Only when incidents such as the “Lost boys” hits the news have I seen law enforcement step into action. If it were otherwise, FLDS would have been shut down a long time ago, no?

They are generally left alone until something brings attention to the group(s). Keep in mind that you’re only hearing one side of the story. That said, if parents are kicking their minor children out on the street then we should go after the parents. If, however, they are asking their adult children to leave the house then it’s none of our concern. I have no problem with law enforcement prosecuting polygamists for crimes that they commit provided that others in society are prosecuted when they commit like crimes. My problem is when they are singled out just because we find their lifestyle distasteful, and then allow other “perverts” to do whatever they want just because it’s politically correct.

 

[Jerusha]

Todd, your opinions on this subject are very mature.

LDS and FLDS live in a paranoid culture, always on the lookout for evidence of being persecuted. They tend to live deep within their own version of history. This subject must be dealt with with extreme sensitivity. Mishandled, it could end up in a minor civil war.

People who live a polygynous lifestyle live on the edge of social acceptability, and must be very vigilant against slipping into other acts that should be prosecuted because they do hurt others.

 

[iwonder]

BJ Colbert:

And just why did the Catholic church allow the Lutherans to break away? Or any of the other break away sects from Catholicism, and why don’t they try to tell them what to do, when they hear of some going against Catholic beliefs? I think that would be the same as the LDS Church trying to tell another religious group what to do. I too heard of these lost boys, many of them came to California where they are being helped. This is just plain silliness to think that the LDS church would have the power to make another church do what they want them to do. That would be like us trying to make the Catholic church believe what we believe. Not possible. Even the US government seems to have no control over these religious fanatics. Look how they handled the Branch Davidian and how they allow the Polygamist sects to flourish on the Utah/Arizona border and other places. Why can’t our government do something about this blatant breaking of the law? That is what I want to know. If there are any government workers in this forum, please answer this question?
BJ

I believe one of Joseph Smith’s strongest tenets was the need topractice religion without government interference. It seems strange that a Mormon would be wishing for governmental control.

 

[iwonder]

BJ Colbert:

Jerusha,
The problem is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is no more related to the RLDS or FLDS than the Catholics are to any other religion that broke off.
We do not know these people and we have no contact with them. If the boys came to any of us for help, we would help them, as we help any people who need and ask for our help.
Why hasn’t the Catholic Church stepped in and helped these boys? They belong to your church as much as they belong to ours, so they are your responsibility too.
The real problem is that the US government has let them get away with breaking the law, the same as they coddle illegal aliens, if they enforced the law these cults would not exist, because the leaders would all be in prison and the people they rule would be free. It is a crime and should be treated as such.
BJ

How do they belong to the Roman Catholic Church? I don’t see where they were baptized, received or confirmed. Could you explain a bit more? Also, I don’t think their parents would be desirous of their children’s baptism in the Catholic Church. In our Church at least one parent needs to be Catholic or at least desirous of the baptism of their child. Baptism cannot be performed against the parent’s wishes, even with another close relative. Where did you get your info that these boys were Catholics?

 

[Casen]

iwonder, I think you missed BJ’s point.

 

[UtahMaggie]

stumbler:

I assume you live in Utah, Maggie.

Is it fair to say the Mormons (and I assume many, indeed most, of the state apparatus is populated with Mormons) are ambivalent about prosecuting polygamy (polygyny)? The “no money” excuse sounds more like a rationalization than an impediment.

In my opinion, yes. Our attorney general also stated that he is the first to start prosecuting polygamists. I don’t know how acurate that statement is but I do know that it’s rare to hear about polygamy being prosecuted simply because it’s against the law. A few years ago, it was discovered that a police officer was a polygamist. He was fired from his job but no charges were filed for having more than one wife.

As far as being from Utah, that’s why I chose my user name as Utah Maggie. So people here would know about my unique situation being Catholic. (Also, to get some sympathy. )

Maggie

 

[Jerusha]

I think they choose to prosecute for polygamy only in cases where other crimes are associated with it. A way to “throw the book at them”-- and put them away for a longer time. Similar to people rarely being prosecuted for a joint of MJ-- only when other drugs and criminal acts are involved.

I believe one of Joseph Smith’s strongest tenets was the need to practice religion without government interference. It seems strange that a Mormon would be wishing for governmental control.

One radical faction of Mormonism is devoted to establishing a Mormon theocracy. That is what Brigham Young did in the early days in Utah. They long for a return to that. And if civil war is a way to accomplish that, then “so be it”.

Scary reasoning.

 

[Jerusha]

iwonder, when dealing with Mormon “logic”, sometimes you just have to :ehh:

 

[Veritas]

Tmaque:

Why is polygamy the only “lifestyle” being prosecuted?

It’s not. Certainly other lifestyles (e.g., NAMBLA) and aspects of otherwise ignored lifestyles (e.g., drug use) are being prosecuted. And certainly polygamy is prosecuted outside of Utah and Mormon circles.

I must say I don’t understand your position. Doesn’t the Mormon Church want polygamy stamped out? Don’t all good Mormons want polygamy stamped out?

And frankly, why not go after FLDS? It’s a win-win-win-win scenario. It’s the right thing to do morally, Mormons can show they reject polygamy, the Mormon Church will see a breakaway sect put out of business, and all those cult members can be freed from oppression. (Unless of course, the LDS really doesn’t reject polygamy.)

What I think I’m hearing from Mormons is just whining and rationalizations.

 

[Casen]

Veritas,
I think this is more a political issue than a religions one at this point even in Utah. Many people including LDS would agree with your position and our current Attorney General seems to feel as you do. However, Utah is a very conservative place and many conservatives are wary of government and believe people should be free to live however they please, even if they want to have multiple spouses, marry an animal or whatever other crazy thing they want to do. For many years the assumption has been that these isolated polygamous groups weren’t hurting anyone so why not leave them alone.

So you have people in Utah, even LDS, on both sides of this political issue. The other difficult issue is that polygamy can be very hard to prosecute. In any case, it seems that the tide is turning with all the allegations of abuse, these lost boys, etc. and I believe more people now feel as you do. But time will tell. If gay marriage becomes legal throughout the US over the next decade I think it will be more difficult to prosecute polygamy since many of the arguments for acceptance of one can be used to justify the other.

 

[Veritas]

Casen:

Utah is a very conservative place and many conservatives are wary of government and believe people should be free to live however they please, even if they want to have multiple spouses, marry an animal or whatever other crazy thing they want to do.

I think that is a description of libertarianism, not conservatism.

Casen:

If gay marriage becomes legal throughout the US over the next decade I think it will be more difficult to prosecute polygamy since many of the arguments for acceptance of one can be used to justify the other.

All the more reason to go after polygamy hard.

 

[iwonder]

Casen:

iwonder, I think you missed BJ’s point.

No I don’t think so. She is trying to distance herself from the radical sect by claiming they have no more to do with LDS than the Catholics do. And that is incorrect. They claim LDS, much of their practice is LDS, and they practice a form of it outlawed by the LDS in 1890 I believe. The LDS never claimed at that time polygamy was wrong. In the declaration it claimed that pursueing that course would make it very difficult to progress in other areas such as temple building. This is why they outlawed polygamy, not because they found it morally reprehensible.It is more that it was imprudent financially. In any case, these similarities would make them an LDS offshoot, whether BJ likes it or not. Just as the Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox and so forth are off shoots of Catholicism, sorry, these guys are your offshoots. You might not like it, but that’s the way it is.

 

[Casen]

Veritas said: I think that is a description of libertarianism, not conservatism.

You are correct, but in Utah they call themselves “conservatives” and vote Republican. In any case, there are a lot of people wary of the government here, especially in the rural areas.

RE: All the more reason to go after polygamy hard.

I don’t disagree with you. I was only trying to frame the issue to help you see this is really a political issue, not a religious one. Since these groups broke away from the LDS church in 1890 we really don’t have anything to do with them religiously but politically the western states will need to deal with the issue one way or the other.

 

[Casen]

Iwonder,
Following your logic is making me dizzy…

Just as the Lutherans, Anglicans, Orthodox and so forth are off shoots of Catholicism, sorry, these guys are your offshoots. You might not like it, but that’s the way it is.

Are you suggesting the RCC is responsible for what Lutherans do?

 

[Veritas]

iwonder:

they outlawed polygamy, not because they found it morally reprehensible.It is more that it was imprudent financially.

Excuse me for horning in on your sub-thread, but I find it an interesting argument. Would any LDS member care to give me the real scoop? Does the Mormon Church officially consider polygamy immoral or just imprudent?

 

[Jerusha]

Are you suggesting the RCC is responsible for what Lutherans do?

As an example, Episcopalians who are opposed to allowing practicing homosexuals into the priesthood receive moral support from Catholics. Since the churches are closely related, they have a certain responsibility for gentle criticism of each other.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

stumbler:

I assume you live in Utah, Maggie.

Is it fair to say the Mormons (and I assume many, indeed most, of the state apparatus is populated with Mormons) are ambivalent about prosecuting polygamy (polygyny)? The “no money” excuse sounds more like a rationalization than an impediment.

   The state of Utah is populated with all religions including Catholic.  The government is the same as any other state, not made up of just Mormons, so therefore the Catholics have just as much power to take charge of prosecuting polygamists as the Mormons do.  There is a separation of Church and State, as there is in the whole USA.  Arizona also has the polygamist problem and they do nothing about it either.  So why don't you organize a group and march on Washington and get the US governent to do something.  I will join you if you want to pursue this.  I am just as outraged as you are that this is allowed to continue and that these women and girls and boys are abused in the ways that they are abused.

BJ