This is why we can't have nice things.Many of us LDS have only
had one wife, or no wife and still have to suffer the behind the back snarks
about Mormons and all "our" wives.
Now that marriage has been "redefined", who is to say polygamy is wrong?
Who is to say pedophilia or bestiality is wrong? Be careful now, you
wouldn't want to discriminate would you? The "marriage" door has
been broken down completely and now marriage means nothing and families lose.
Why is this NEWS? I am surprised!
15 minutes of fame. raising kids in an illegal environment is not child abuse?
Marriage is a right for any two, er, three, no- make that four, maybe FIVE
loving adults.Anyone who dares to criticize or condemn, or even
snicker at such a concept is obviously a prejudicial bigot of the worst order
and must be sent to the re-education camps until their mind fully embraces the
new politically correct definitions.So, why discriminate against
people who want to marry infants or animals, if they love them?The
unintended consequences of the rush to embrace something once considered
perverse or abhorrent, but now proclaimed as "a RIGHT!" will be slow to
unfold. And likely impossible to reverse.Celebrate the diverse new
world, if you like it, but I will abstain.But, this "family"
should be free to practice their relationship as long as they are consenting
Mountainman,Some of your analogies have flaws, but more saying
polygamy must be acceptable now is a good point. I will add family members
being able to marry.If gays should be able to marry, there is no
reason to discriminate against polygamy or family member being able to marry.Sex happens outside of marriage and there are countless marraiges
without sex, so using sex as a reason to prohibit family members from marrying
doesn't hold.Some day these things will be valid, if we're
opening it up to homosexuals.
I am not a bigot, plural marriage is illegal. period.
When applying the same rationale and constitutionality that has successfully
worked in legalizing gay marriage, there is NO WAY polygamy will be illegal for
@Mountanman"Now that marriage has been "redefined", who is to
say polygamy is wrong? "I dunno, you seem like you consider it
to be the case, as do many others who somehow also believe it was okay for a
period around 1840-1890, and yet gay marriage advocates are the ones that have
to deal with inconsistency?
@DN Subscriber 2Infants and animals can't give consent. Don't be
May I ask, is the "redefinition" of marriage correct and right? And is
it bettering our society? If you have an answer please explain, and if possible
provide ample proof.
Why do people get upset with polygamist like the Browns or the Williams were it
is consental no abuse going on. At least they try to take care of their wives
and kids. Yet people are okay with a guy going out and having affairs and
leaving single moms everywhere he goes? I hope the federal judge rules in the
Browns and other polygamists favor. If the state is going to prosecute them they
need to also prosecute anyone cohabiting or having affairs. Technically they are
only legally married to one wife.The rest are spiritual marriages. As long as
their is no abuse, the marriage is not forced, no under age garbage going on. I
think most people do not care. Time to update Utah's bigamy laws.
He must be quite a guy he has 5 attractive women and some guys can't even
find one wife.If polygamy got to be too big quite a few men
wouldn't be able to find a wife. and that instance the man without would be
justified in pursuing the wives of those that have more than one.
Is that a UVU cap? Go Wolverines
What kind of man needs 24 children?
I love that picture of him with his "wives". It looks like they have to
prop him up for the photo. The kids from that lifestyle have about the same
life opportunities as a kid growing up with a single mom in a trailer park. Its
MountanmanBig difference between consenting adults and relationships
involving animals and children, who can't consent. I don't agree with
polygamy from a religious standpoint, but I agree that adults should be able to
decide for themselves. They don't need me telling them how to live. If
there is abuse, or the children can't be cared for or paid for it is a
different story. But I have enough to worry about in my life to worry about what
polygamists are doing. And to any mormon stating that it is illegal, and
isn't right - be very careful. You are doing the same thing that was done
to your church when it started polygamy back in the 1800's. Don't be a
Brahmabull. No hypocrisy here! Polygamy was not started by the Mormon church. It
was practiced by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and many others in Biblical times. I
don't want to be a polygamist but I do think its interesting that the same
arguments used to re-define traditional marriage can be used to justify polygamy
or any other kind of re-definition of "marriage" and that is very
dangerous indeed. Add to that there have been many women who were forced into
polygamist marriages. So who is being a hypocrite?
MountanmanI guess you didn't read my comment. I'll repeat
"If there is abuse, or the children can't be cared for or paid for it
is a different story." That includes those FORCED into polygamy,
I obviously know and believe that is wrong and should not be tolerated in any
way. But as far as consenting adults go - they should have a right to do it. It
shouldn't be illegal. You compared polygamy to pedophilia and beastiality,
and that is why I am concerned as they aren't in the same realm. Yes some
pedophilia happens in polygamy, but I already stated that is not acceptable so I
don't get why you are confused.All the best.
For all those commentators who are so certain that "consent" is a
impenetrable firewall against other abhorrent (currently) forms of
"marriage", let me remind you that marriage was recently redefined to
include same sex "marriage". Why can't "consent" or even
"consenting adult" be redefined? In fact, many are already making that
argument.The fact is if those pushing same sex "marriage"
were intellectually honest, they would acknowledge there are no limits to how
the same arguments that are used to justify same sex "marriage" can
justify almost any other type of "marriage".
Dateline ran the Warren Jeffs story the other night, and then to see this
program advertised on Sunday was very disturbing. This clearly sheds a negative
light onto Utah and its cultural acceptance of such lifestyles, and I know it
impacts our ability to attract industry and economic development.I
was in a recruiting situation recently where one of the candidates we were
trying to hire was visibly shaken by her exposure to polygamy in the community
during her interview process. This situation was completely out of our control,
and I'm sure she'll be telling her colleagues about what she witnessed
-- making it harder for us in the future to recruit.
Religously speaking, the premise that polygammy is wrong in and of itself is not
true. Illegal in the US, sure, but that doesn't mean it is wrong. Same
sex marriage is wrong in and of itself, but becoming legal.Needless
to say, you cannot allow one legally and then turn on the other. Both will
become legal if one does, it's just a matter of time.Here is
how polygammy could work in our legal system:1. All parties involved must
consent2. All parties involved must be of legal age and not a minority3. All parties involved cannot be claimed as a depedent4. All parties
involved must be mentally capable to exercise such a decision (to prevent abuse
of those with disabilities)Those stipulations should prevent most
cases of abuse that have stemmed from polygamous marriages with cults like
Warren Jeff's FLDS.These same rules should be applied to same
sex marriage cases. In the meantime I have enough work, stress, and problems,
and joys with my single family. Good luck to you polygamists out there,
especially those of you recovering from the FLDS cult!
We are going to have face reality.Marriage has been re-defined to include
same-sex couples by arguing that they cannot change who they are attracted to
and love. The same argument can be made for plural marriage quite easily and how
do you or I prove that between consenting adults this is not allowable. After
all, our country is changing to allow same-sex so why not plural? This could
even mean 2 or more husbands as well as 2 or more wives and any combination
thereof. It is only a matter of time until this is challenged legally.
Does the company filming this reality show not get challenged legally for
aiding, abetting and financially supporting illegal behavior??
I have to wonder, would these folks choose this lifestyle if they could do it
all over again? These women have all been married to Mr. Williams for over 14
years and all of the relationships began on the basis of religion. Now that
they have abandoned those religious beliefs they must justify their current
situation to themselves and others on the basis that is "socially
acceptable" to live the way they are living. What other choice do they have
at this point? Can they back out? They are moral and ethical enough
individuals to accept responsibility for their former decisions, and Mr.
Williams is man enough to try to take responsibility for his progeny, but to
make this a social agenda for what is "right" and "acceptable"
is a façade.
"There is nothing wrong with consenting adults living and loving how they
choose."The above quote reminds me of this neat verse:
"...there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth
not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day." (Mormon 8:31)
If it works for them and it doesn't affect me, I am fine with it.
WOW... the world just keeps kicking God and His teachings out of the equation.
Do people no longer believe in God's teachings? People say Oh c'mon,
get with the times but that's just a cop out for doing what they want to
do, whether it's sanctified by God or not and if not I'm the one
that's wrong by not going along with them. Sorry... I choose to stick to
God's plan and his instruction. When the end finally comes, I don't
want my excuse for not obeying all his commandments to be, Well God, I was just
trying to keep up with the times.
Icarus, I would strongly reconsider using the phrase "intellectually
honest." Of course the age of consent could someday be redefined. We're
not that far removed from the days of girls routinely becoming wives in their
mid-teens. But when people are throwing around absurdities like "infant
marriage" or suggesting that bestiality may someday become legal, we've
reached the point where the discussion has ceased to be of any interest to
me.For anyone to equate these types of things with gay marriage is
the antithesis of "intellectually honest." Many believe that the
government should have the right to tell two adults of the same gender they
can't get married. Many believe polygamy should be legal. No matter your
stand on either of those issues, and regardless of whether the age of consent is
16, 17, or 25, the core of the pro argument is that people with the capacity to
understand their options and make a decision should be allowed to do so. The weird extremes some are bringing up are not supported by a desire to
enhance personal freedom, and they are developments only longed for by imaginary
I have a friend with four wives. I have a couple of others with two. My friend
with four wives has 50 children. He talks about teenagers not having the same
work ethic as people in the past. I want to say, "Well, maybe you need to
have more one-on-one time with EACH of your children? Maybe one night a week
you can bring your family together and turn off the TV'S and teach them
about values. . . somewhere in an AUDITORIUM."Some people think
that lots of wives mean lots of intimacy. If you think about it, for even a
little bit you realize, "What?! Are you totally NUTS!"Fathers have more of a responsibility to their children than passing on their
Are many of the anti-polygamists unaware that adultery is illegal too. You keep
saying polygamy is illegal period. So is driving 1 mph over the speed limit,
period. So is sleeping with somebody who isn't your spouse, yet we
don't see that getting prosecuted, do we?
For those saying that Old Testament figures had multiple wives, yes, that is
true, however, nowhere in the Bible is that promoted or encouraged. However,
the New Testament is very clear in encouraging people to be the husband of one
wife. That is an argument on the religious side. I'm not Mormon, so I
don't know what their teachings say in their other books of scripture, but
as a Christian, I don't think you can make a case that the Bible claims
that it is okay.
@Brahmabull: "children can't be cared for or paid for it is
a different story."?Most children in this country can't be
cared for by their parent/s. Can't discriminate on that bases.
@MountanmanHayden, IDNow that marriage has been
"redefined", who is to say polygamy is wrong? 8:19 a.m. Sept. 16,
2013======== Ummm, our Mormon Prophets, perhaps?
You gotta love how so many people attempt to justify their choices by saying
they're doing something because of their "religious beliefs."
That's apparently the ultimate excuse for doing stupid things that just
don't add up in a world of reality. And you have to wonder about women who
would voluntarily get mixed up in this kind of a deal; they must have ultra-poor
self images to think they're not good enough to lay claim to their OWN man,
and not have to share him with a harem. And that's consistent with the
fact that our society produces many females who have serious self-esteem issues.
But once they start being responsible for their own choices, they should
realize that those choices can substantially exacerbate the problems
I am curious as to the location (town) of the family. If they are coming out of
the shadows, so to speak, why the subterfuge in not naming the little community
where they live?It seems to me that the author is only telling part
of the story. Who in the city government is telling some family, or is it
families, to move out of "his" town? Why all the secrecy?
If we are so "open" to plural marriage why not identify the town(s)
where there are significant plural families? Why the cloak and dagger stuff?
Yes, hypocrisy abounds. And everyone knows it. Utah just remains in a state of
constant denial. Polygamy once flourished here, was preached from the rafters
and openly practiced. Two of my gg-grandfathers served their prison time rather
than abandon their beliefs or their families. They were infuriated at the 1890
reversal, but believed they could only be blessed by obeying their prophets.And stop with the Biblical analogy, especially when any successive LDS
prophet's revelations can trump it. God gave the standard in the Garden,
Abraham and Jacob exceeded God's bounds and paid the price. Isaac never
practiced it; David and Solomon abused it. God still chose to bless
Abraham's descendants based on His covenant with him. Just because one of
the patriarchs did something in his life, did not make it God's will.
Abraham and Isaac lied about their wives, Rebecca and Jacob deceived Isaac,
David committed adultery, and Solomon confessed his entire life of false
pleasure in Ecclesiastes. Which of those ungodly practices would you
espouse?When man deviates from God's plan, he finds
unhappiness. D&C 132 was a huge deviation.
Anyway, late as I am to this discussion my only comment without reading all the
posts is now the issue of plural marriage can come into the discussion along
with the same sex marriage issue. And my opinion is that multiple wives (or
husbands for that matter) is no different than bending the rules for the same
sex couples. As for myself, I'll stick with traditional marriage.
This is still a form of mostly same gender marriage....Just saying.
So Utahans just sweep 50 years of their heritage and history under the carpet as
if it never existed?Find me one active member who has not read
"Sacred Lonliness", who can tell us the number and ages of Joseph
Smith's living wives, not the plethora who sealed themselves to him
posthumously. And please cite the Church curriculum or source. You'd
think these polygamists came from another planet.When you duck and
run and never fix the problem you started, expect the Day of Reckoning to
arrive. The redefining of marriage in America first came with D&C 132, not
in this decade, brethren.
Even though they are no longer religious, their lifestyle has a religious
foundation. The question is, will this lifestyle be absorbed and perpetuated in
secular society or will this lifestyle dissolve with their children's
generation who have no religious upbringing?
Re: "So Utahans just sweep 50 years of their heritage and history under the
carpet as if it never existed?"Yeah? You say it like it's a
bad thing.Modern Utah polygamy is not some cute anachronism,
nostalgically connecting Mormons to our real and beloved roots. It's
actually the exact opposite.Our ancestors lived -- some even came to
love -- polygamy, but they did so in submission to God's will. Modern
polygamists, on the other hand, live in open rebellion.We do, of
course, condemn modern polygamy, and assert there's not the slightest hint
of hypocrisy in doing so.--Live polygamy pursuant to God's
commandment? Good.--Live polygamy in violation of God's
commandment? Bad.It's really that simple.Some
visceral Mormon reactions may be traced to deeper roots, however. Many of us
harbor concerns that, once marriage is redefined to legalize all perverse
relationships, will God once again require adherence to a more 1840s definition
of celestial marriage?God needs no advice from me on the subject, of
course, but here's hoping His will doesn't change.
Just curious if he ever calls one of his wives by the wrong name?
To: DN Subscriber 2 - then they should keep it to themselves because there is a
majority of people in the world that have no interest in blownup stories of
immorality and adultery. I feel sorry for them because the day is going to come
and there will be no question as to how the Lord feels about their choices.
atl134"Infants and animals can't give consent. Don't be
silly."Who said you can make the rules? Or that the government
can? Remember, SCOTUS ruled that DOMA was illegal/unconstitutional. Anybody
should be able to marry anyone they are in love with and want to spend their
lives with. That would include all arrangements such as so-called pedophilia
and incest. Remember, the government is to stay out of defining marriage.This Williams guy is one lucky dude. Five wives... I suppose he can get
caught up on his rest on Saturdays and Sundays.
Of course the government should stay out of defining marriage. But... if
polygamy becomes widely accepted and a few men gobble up all the females, what
will the rest of the male population do for companions? Marry each other?I suppose they could go to war and fight in the name of some sort of
Let me pose a scenario: A 13 year old girl gets emancipated from her parents by
court order. She then wants to marry a 28 year old man. The court says she can
give consent, but she is at an age Where statutory rape laws apply. There are so many complicated issues with redefining marriage.Simple solution: Government oversees civil unions, and marriage returns to
the churches where it belongs. Everyone gets the same legal benefits and
rights, but there is also protection for diverse opinions. A truly
Let's make it clear that these women were never Mormons. There is only one
kind of Mormon. As President Hinckley stated in conference, "There is no
such thing as a Fundamentalist Mormon" and there has been no polygamy in the
Mormon church for the past 123 years.
There seem to be many that believe that gay marriage compares directly to
polygamous marriages, but I don't believe so. Yes, they are both a type of
marriage, but the definition of marriage, to me (and most Christians), is
between two people. When we get more than that, the situation and the issues
within it are quite different..(the inference of 2nd class citizenship of women,
welfare fraud, increase of child abuse issues "lost boys" and the list
goes on....)Also, the impression that Biblical people shows that polygamy
can be fine is not true. If examined closely, a person can see that it was never
commanded there (was only sometimes an accepted practice as it can still be,
mostly in third world countries). The Biblical people always had severe problems
because of it and their stories serve to show it to be a sin. It is glorified