They'll Never Understand

I have the sense that a lot of people in this world are really galled by the whole polygamy thing. The reactions to news articles; the comments about Fundamentalist Mormon families and communities - it all shows a deep disdain for the culture, the practitioners and even the religion. Many people seem to be as enthused about polygamy as they are of learning they are HIV positive. It is repugnant and impossible to understand.

A significant number of characters seem to be making a career out of combating polygamy and polygamists. Even well-balanced, compassionate people are at least baffled as to why so many men and (even more) women deliberately choose to be polygamous.

A possible feminist complaint could grow out of the common perception that polygamous men dominate and subjugate their wives. What's confusing is that there are multitudes of monogamous men who do exactly that. Generally, such situations are the result of character shortcomings in one or more of the spouses (- NOT because they happen to be believers in Mormonism).

These perception problems are still very hard to resolve. WHY?

I believe the simple answer is - PATRIARCHY.

Patriarchy is a controversial concept. It is plainly endorsed by the Bible and, until the 20th century, it was pretty much the accepted family model across 99% of the world. In our modern, progressive world view, we are taught to shun patriarchy. We repudiate the idea that a man is the "head" of his "household", especially in the very binary, dyadic monogamous arrangement. Modern monogamy is more like a duel than patriarchy. In the monogamy model, the partner with the strongest personality (or muscles) wins more of the arguments.

Patriarchy, however, evinces an asymmetrical family model where the husband holds an position of political and/or religious supremacy and has the "final say". To the average outsider, this is an almost indefensible arrangement. Why would a woman voluntarily subject herself to the "leadership" of a husband, when she could freely choose otherwise? Why would she not choose instead to join a "polyamorous" relationship, where all of the players are egalitarian and secular, and negotiate a vast array of different intimacy dynamics?

Here's the dilemma though, - when there is one man and several women, the women all crave the husband's time and attentions. What they get is ALWAYS a portion - a fraction of his total, available energies (just as in monogamy), and here's the CRUX. WHO decides how to divide up his time (daytime or bedtime)? Ultimately, it is the husband who MUST govern his own schedule, his eating, his bathing, his working, his playing, his waking and sleeping. It is just a simple fact of life and logistics. The husband is thus elevated upwards a notch in the political hierarchy, because he (and he alone) must make those moment-by-moment, executive decisions about what he is going to do with his time and with whom he will spend it. Face it folks - that is the inherent NATURE of religiously-inspired polygyny - there is no getting around it.

Yes, the poor man is vastly outnumbered by the women in his family. They may even (individually or collectively) have more robust personalities than his. They can out-vote him and even threaten to leave. Still, in the end, he is the de facto chief, because he often governs a significant percentage of the family's resources. Plus - what if he is just like typical men - lazy, selfish, inconsiderate, rude, controlling, brutish, smelly, short-tempered, deceitful, disloyal, ignorant, impatient and oversexed? It has been proposed by no small number of advocates that there should be strict laws against men having more than one partner, ever. Heck, it's a wonder that our noble government allows men to have a partner at all.

I know the Mormon Church looks at modern men that way (except for the ones in leadership positions). The distinguished Mormon polygamist leaders (and apostles) of the 1800's were nigh unto godhood - Joseph, Brigham, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball, Parley P. Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, Heber J. Grant and so on. Nowadays, the men who enter the New and Everlasting Covenant are criminals, apostates and filthy adulterers.

So, to all you diffident outsiders I say this, "What if there are five good women who discover a man who is truly decent? - a man who is honorable, fair, studious, charitable, kind, compassionate, patient, wise, prayerful, generous, loyal, strong, industrious, loving and humble? What if our Heavenly Father inspires and directs those five women to join with that man in an eternal marriage? Should the government step in and stop the relationships before they blossom?"

Tens of thousands of Fundamentalist Mormons have embraced this lifestyle as part of a deeply-held religious theology. The women recognize that they exchange a certain portion of their political autonomy for the opportunity to spend the eternities with someone who aspires to godhood. They see this covenant as a huge blessing, and not as a burden. They develop rich, enduring relationships with their sister-wives - which would have been impossible outside the covenant. They live according to the revealed convictions afforded them by the restoration of the Fullness of the Gospel. They face hardships and adversities like the rest of humanity, but they accept their trials as a gift from God - calculated to magnify and exalt them. They worship our God, our greatest Patriarch, and they rejoice in having a mortal patriarch who cherishes them - and whose sole objective is to return, with them, to the presence of God, so that they might inherit ALL that He has.

So, do we embrace a healthy form of patriarchy? Do we allow Barack Obama to exercise leadership over the Executive Branch? Do we allow the Pope to oversee the Catholic Church and the Vatican? Do we condone Thomas S. Monson's primacy over the LDS Church? Do you let your boss lead you when you are at work? Would we let Jesus Christ direct his apostles and disciples? These are all different types of leadership - even "patriarchy" scenarios. Have you lived inside a fully-functioning polygamous family? In such a home, compulsion cannot work. Duress and tyranny would bring swift destruction. There can NEVER be success, except through collaboration, true love, common-consent and leadership through compassion and service.

Outsiders may NEVER understand this. If they did understand it, they would not be outsiders anymore. Still, as alluded to in D&C 113:8, conviction is often genetic.

Polygamists Are Human !!!

NEWSFLASH !!! 4:30 pm, Thursday December 16, 2010

POLYGAMISTS (AND FUNDAMENTALIST MORMONS) ARE HUMAN!!
Today, Judge James Brady (of Utah's Fourth District Court) ruled that polygamists are human after all, and deserve to be treated as such. You may remember my earlier post (Leavitt Alone, You Idiot!) on the custody battle between Joseph Compton (and outgoing first wife). Attorney (and demi-human), Devil Leadvitt, took the side of the exiting wife, arguing that, since Compton resided in an ostensibly "polygamous" town (Rocky Ridge), it would be a "criminal" environment and an unacceptable venue for visitations between Compton and his children. The first judge, Damnable Ire, ruled against Compton, forcing him to visit with his children only at their mother's residence.

Compton (a lifelong monogamist with polygamous DNA) challenged the initial ruling (through his highly-seasoned trial attorney, Grant Morrison) and learned today that Judge Brady has reversed the other judge and awarded Compton all of the reliefs he sought, ordering that he, as the non-custodial parent, must have unrestricted "parent time" with his children.

Despite Leadvitt's craven efforts to relegate Compton to a sub-human status, depriving him of access to his natural children (based only on the religious thoughts in his head and on the location of his residence), the Court saw reason and sanity, and restored Compton to the status of complete human being.

Rumor has it that Leadvitt has fled to Russia, where his disdain for the most basic of human rights is enthusiastically shared by many old-guard, Soviet officials.

Poop or get off the pot!

In case any of you have long forgotten the investigation into the family life of the stars of the TLC Sister Wives show, let me remind you that the Utah County Attorney's office has made a decision - the decision to not make a decision - well, sort of.

For a historical reminder, see this article.

First the Lehi police said they were looking into filing charges.

The Utah Attorney General's office said it would leave the decision up to the Lehi police department.

Then, the next day, the AG's office said it would assist the Lehi police if asked.

Then Lehi Police said they had completed the investigation and turned it over to the Utah County Attorney's office.

Then the Utah Co. Attorney's office said it could take "months" to make a decision [which is understandable, considering the massive evidence of guilt they already had].

Then the deputy Utah County Attorney met with the Utah A.G.'s office.

Then we didn't hear anything.

Maybe they don't have time for a showdown with Jonathan Turley before Christmas.

Maybe they hate to admit that they can no more use Utah's insane bigamy statute on consenting adults, than they can prosecute Lord Jerry Sloan for public profanity in front of 19,000 half-Mormon screaming fans.

In Utah, justice is not so swift, is it?

Mouth Opened, Foot Inserted

Today in the Canadian Reference case, evolutionary psychologist, Todd Shackelford, disputed the earlier testimony of Joseph Henrich (see this article).

Shackelford reminded the court that, if abuse allegedly occurs in some polygamous households, it certainly occurs in every other mating relationship also - polygamy absolutely does not have the "corner" on the abuse "market".

Idiot B.C. Attorney General, Craig Jones, tried to argue that, just because it can clearly be shown that monogamists have also been shown to perpetrate abuse, it remains to be demonstrated whether the abuses occurring in polygamous households occur to a greater extent.

NO DUHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I bet you wish you could take that statement back !!!

Anyway, Jonesy-Boy, if you are so confident that a thorough scientific study would prove that the abuse statistics in polygamous families will surely be proportionally higher than those in monogamous homes, then have at it! Commission the study; ignore the work of Janet Bennion; ignore the work of Altman and Ginat, and start afresh. Take about five years, and then let's resume this circus of a trial in 2015. Plus, while you're at it, do me a big favor, and name three women from polygamous households in Canada who have filed criminal abuse charges in the last ten years.

Jones, I think you are like the witnesses you have called. You have a final, scripted objective - namely to convince a court that the concept of polygamy is evil and that its practitioners must be criminalized, so you scrounge around for anecdotes, and twist academic thinking to bolster your objective at any cost. That is both silly and dishonest. It has no relationship to logic and the truth. You could better argue that the higher the mountain, the greater the likelihood that the mountain-climber will fall and die when climbing it - justifying a criminal prohibition against mountain-climbing above 10,000 feet. If you want to protect Canadians from themselves, start with yourself.

Here's what I see:- the "anti" crowd is churning out an incessant, repetitive, tiresome drumbeat of - "Polygamy is dreadful because we heard that some people were upset with their experiences in a plural family." That is about as absurd as saying, "All Indians walk in single file - and I know this for sure, because the last Indian I saw was walking in single file." Meanwhile the "pro" crowd is offering a cumulative crescendo of voices saying, "Yeah, we're not perfect - we're human, but we are no different from other humans in that we want happy families and we have deeply-held reasons for structuring our families a certain way, so the government should grant us freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and an inviolable right to privacy."

Haters - 0, Polygamists - 10

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I just heard that the U.S. House of Representatives voted to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

I know a handful of polygamists who are serving honorably in the military. One was threatened with discharge when it was learned that one of his long-time girl-friends posed as a spouse from time to time.

You know what my next question is, don't you?

Does the repeal of the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy apply equally to polygamists? In my view, Lawrence put an end to that kind of discrimination crap. Am I wrong?

Assange Innocent

Fox News commentator, Judge Andrew Napolitano, just offered his opinion that, in the Wikileaks case, Julian Assange is likely innocent (at least according to U.S. Supreme Court opinions).

Napolitano explained that the military gentleman who stole the classified documents would be guilty of the theft. However, any party who (in the context of free speech and journalism) acquires and publishes those documents is immune from all civil and criminal penalties.

Assange is ostensibly no saint, but it is fascinating to watch the widespread vilification of Assange, who will likely be found entirely innocent (except for the case of his plural relationship with two hot Swedish chicks). Heck, only polygamists are more widely vilified than Assange.

The Protection of Marriage

Today brought us yet another pathetic piece of political propaganda. A coalition of religious organizations from across the country united to create a document titled, "The Protection of Marriage: A Shared Commitment".

In each of its three paragraphs, the statement reiterates the definition of marriage as being between "one man and one woman". So, do you think this is calculated to address homosexuality, polygamy or both? Bishop Burton of the LDS Church is one of the signers of the document.

If marriage is about permanency and offspring, where do great patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and Brigham fit in? How do our mothers in Heaven feel about this declaration? Are their marriages to our Father now terminated?

If monogamous marriage is so wildly successful, why then do more than half of those marriages fail? Why insist on forcing a marriage model upon us that has such a terrible track record?

Plus, if those 26 religions are really that smart about stuff, how come they can't spell the word "indispensAble"?

Where Is Your Lifeboat?

Some years ago, I watched the movie TITANIC (except for the pornographic parts). One significant plot element in this fictional story was that some idiot forgot to equip the vessel with an adequate number of lifeboats, so a bunch of passengers perished!!!! As if anyone would be that stupid !!!! Of course, some of the rich and powerful passengers figured out ways to secure themselves a seat on a lifeboat.

Anyway, I thought back to the movie THE PIANIST (with Adrien Brody). In the story, a large number of Jewish families in Poland were victimized, persecuted and forcibly relocated. I noted that, whether the families were formerly rich or poor, after the brutal purges, all of them were equally destitute and impoverished.

I read an article by an Iranian woman (Setareh Sabety). She wrote about her experiences around 1979, when the Shah of Iran was ousted by the Ayatollah Khomeini. She relates how there was a fervor for a change in the political regime. People were largely oblivious of the tyranny and oppression awaiting them. She reports that her rich father was blacklisted and stripped of the vast wealth and land he had hitherto possessed. His former class and status were abruptly revoked.

I remembered seeing a recent plug for a book titled "The day after the dollar crashes", and then I thought - Wait! If the dollar crashes, then all those 401k and IRA accounts (electronic bookkeeping entries) will be annihilated. All the insurance policies, checking and savings accounts - they will all be MEANINGLESS. Then Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates will be as rich as me. They'll be like the rest of us - looking for a loose brick to throw through the nearest grocery store window.

Surely these rich and famous and powerful people have a contingency plan. Don't they already understand that when the new (totalitarian) regime takes control, the teachers, doctors, poets, clerics, musicians, and all of the old-school intelligentsia will have to be sent to a Gulag or vanish? Do Bill and Oprah have a special plan? Have they already talked to Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Bernanke, and arranged for a pre-paid ticket and seat on the lifeboat? Have they arranged for a way to get deep underground (with their fellow progressives and revolutionaries) for at least three weeks while the bombs fly and while they wait for the hot fallout to dissipate?

Where is your lifeboat?

The New Math

I think I will tear out the rest of my hair if I hear one more idiot say that polygamy is a threat to society because it will result in a shortage of available females (followed by riots and violence).

"Allowing men to have multiple wives inevitably leads to a reduced supply of women, increasing demand, said Shoshana Grossbard, an expert in the economics of marriage from San Diego State University." (excerpted from the following CBC News article).

By my most recent calculations, there are approximately six billion people in the world (if you include liberals). Your guess is as good as mine as to what fraction of them are females. Now, if Canada does or does not de-criminalize polygamy, I suspect that approximately four hundred Canadian men will become polygamists in the next thirty years, averaging 2.5 wives per man. This will result in the leaching of 600 extra women from the pool of available brides. What will all those poor, desperate, marriage-hungry, young Canadian suitors do? I fear not only rioting, but the utter disintegration of society as we know it.

I propose that Canada import 1,000 Sudanese women from Darfur, where the women are regularly brutalized, and at least four hundred men have been killed.

Mathematical problem solved.

1 + 3 = -2

Religious Test

Reports are coming in that another Arizona Strip police officer (Jesse Barlow) was decertified today. Apparently, the rationale was that he "lied" or at least omitted to mention on his application that he is a member of the FLDS religion. I'll update this post if my information is inaccurate. However, I think he wasn't the first.

I think I'm not fully grasping the justification for such actions. If one is a member of the FLDS Church (or say - the Latter-day Church of Christ), is one not permitted to be a police officer? Is it because of a belief in the teachings of the Bible, like salvation, repentance and polygamy. OR - is it because some of the applicant's neighbors in the FLDS community have more than one partner? Are we guilty of the crime of living next door to an accused polygamist?

Wait, though, when I applied for a job as a police officer, I don't remember a place on the form where it said:

"What is your chosen religion or church affiliation? BTW - if you are FLDS or your last name is 'Kingston', stop here and terminate the application process."

I am reminded of the movie, "The Matrix". The movie depicts a society whose citizens are oblivious to the fact that an invisible entity with greater power controls every aspect of their lives. I think of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who feel immense frustration over how we were once supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, but now we live in a virtual prison where we are told what to think, what to eat, how we can travel, where we can work, how we must raise our children, and whom we can marry. I thought of the hundreds of millions of Europeans who have lived under this oppressive poison of socialism for so many centuries, that they have no idea what is wrong with it and what awaits them.

I pray for the arrival of the Two Witnesses and the great work they will commence with the "remnant". I pray for my fellow Saints and that they will soon swallow the "red pill" and wake up ready to choose righteousness over tyranny.

Who holds the keys?

Bernanke: "We could raise interest rates in 15 minutes if we have to."

If you were ever under the illusion that We The People are sovereigns in this land, read the above statement again (from Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke) reported in this article.

Do we go to a polling station to vote for Bernanke or Greenspan? Why is he merely appointed (with only the charade of a token acquiescence from the President)? It's one thing to have political power, but "He who has the gold makes the rules'.

Why, "in 15 minutes", can one little Irish guy from Dillon, South Carolina, named Ben Shalom Bernanke, be vested with so much unbridled power that he can change the course of U.S. monetary policy without so much as a wink from the Senate and the House? Who votes? Who oversees these decisions? I've never seen such decisions argued in a committee of our representatives. It appears that Bernanke and his posse just do what they want when they want - the People be damned!

When the private corporation known as the "Federal" Reserve was created in 1913, it was given power to "coin" (print) our money, except that all the money it printed for us would now come to us in the form of a loan, on which we would have to pay interest. Funny thing is - it doesn't really cost the Fed a lot to print paper money - practically nothing, in fact. PLUS - we had to put up collateral to get those paper money (Federal Reserve [loan] "Notes"). What collateral? ---- Treasury Bills.

So, here's the key to the whole swindle - the Fed, which has invested NOTHING in the whole scheme, tells us the following: first - our paper "dollars" (created virtually out of thin air) are NOT redeemable for gold; secondly - it will eventually NOT accept our paper dollars as repayment for the "loan"; and thirdly - it can exchange the Treasury Bills ("T-Bills") we gave it FOR OUR GOLD. This is why Fort Knox is empty.

In truth, banks have been trying to seize control of our economy and our lifeblood since long ago (read about the Bank War in Wikipedia). When we abdicate our birthright and freedoms to a pack of "money-changers", we eventually reach a crossroads or a precipice. Perhaps a better word would be "showdown".

The adversary has some objectives: one is to control our agency; another is to make us do evil things so that our guilt will debilitate us. He resents our salvation (through Jesus) and dreads our exaltation (through the Father). Satan's goal is to subdue the entire earth. The next step is a complete dismantling of the world's economies so that all nations can be compelled to align under a single set of global, dictatorial rulers.

Who do you think holds the keys to this world? Is it Bernanke?

He Gets It, He Really Gets It!

The UEP trust controversy surfaced again a couple of times this week - first in the Utah Supreme Court (some FLDS bishops want to be intervenors in trust issues) and secondly in the local federal District Court with Judge Dee Benson (the FLDS want to reverse Judge Lintbag's decision to rewrite/reform the UEP trust).

I'm going to distill this topic down to the simplest possible element. WHY? because I understand that that is what Judge Benson did (in Federal Court) yesterday. Apparently the government (defense in the case = Shields, Jensen, and Richards) tried (for hours) to defend the wisdom of Judge Diseased Lintbag's actions:

"She had no choice"
"She did what she thought was best"
"No FLDS person protested the reformation"
"It's not healthy for the FLDS to honor their leaders' inspiration"
"We couldn't let Warren Jeffs control the trust; he's bad!"
"We couldn't let those poor, poor people lose their homes"
"We had to protect the disaffected ex-members"
"Poor Bruce Wisan needs a paycheck"

Arguing for the Plaintiffs (FLDS people), Judge Benson reiterated 100 times that, despite the fact that the State had a duty to go in and protect this (charitable) trust from doom and destruction (threatened by the Hischers and the Fooles), it did not have a Constitutional right to barge in and start controlling everything else about the trust, even to the point of changing the very founding language of the trust, removing its religious intents, and selling off big chunks of it to put ill-gotten lucre in Wisass's pocket. Judge Benson argued that Judge Lintbag should not have gotten her dirty fingers into this pie in the first place. He argued that, if all of Lintbag's overreaching interference constituted a breach of the people's Constitutional, First-Amendment "Free Exercise" rights, then the whole thing has to be re-wound - Laches or no Laches.

The A.G. attorneys kept trying to say that Judge Lintbag had no choice but to do what she did, and Judge Benson kept saying that it doesn't really matter one teensy weensy little bit what she thought was in the best interests of those poor, beleaguered, criminal polygamists, if what she did was JUST PLAIN DOWNRIGHT VIOLATIVE OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

I think he gets it - he really really gets it. Maybe Lintbag can now reimburse all those poor, poor people who have suffered loss.

Competition

I was at a park one day and noticed a game of softball being played. I walked over closer to the athletes and noticed that some of them were in wheelchairs. They were children - special-needs children. I noticed that the coaches were cheering each play enthusiastically. Some kids had to swing a dozen times before connecting with the ball. Some stumbled their way from base to base. Others needed to be wheeled by a loving parent. As the game drew to a close, I realized that it wasn't very clear which team, if any, had won the game. I'm pretty sure that each player felt that he or she had won, while eating the post-game treats.

I thought about Lance Armstrong. I remember that he won seven successive Tour-de-France championships. I remembered that I like to ride my bicycle. I realized, also, that I don't like to ride my bicycle as much as Lance likes to ride his. I wondered (only momentarily) if I would have the drive and passion to ride a bicycle as vigorously as Lance does. . . . . . . . . Naahh!

I thought about all those other riders - hundreds of them - over a seven(-plus)-year stretch. I realized that most of them probably HATE Lance Armstrong (while a few sincerely respect him). The French anti-doping organization hates him too - and tried (unsuccessfully) to take away his trophies.

I thought about the traffic on the I-10 freeway when I drive home from work during rush-hour. I realized that the evening commute is a race. Some of these motorists hate the other ones. Every one wants to get home soon. The other motorists are in my way. I am competing with them for speed and asphalt. In some parts of the world, millions are competing just for the next meal.

I wondered if all of life was like that - a competition. I remembered our miserable U.S. economy and the declining dollar. I thought about the millions of unemployed people who are all competing for the same handful of job openings. I thought about Obama and his argument that we should tax rich people more, and how the Democrats and Republicans are competing over how those public dollars will be spent. I realized that, when God put us on this planet, He knew we would all be competing.

The famous daytime TV life coach, Dr. Phil (McGraw) talks about a phenomenon called "leveling". This occurs after a person achieves success in a certain aspect of life - money, adulation, physical fitness, popularity, offspring, etc. Often, a close friend or family member will express thinly-veiled resentment and try to trivialize the person's success - or even endeavor to take it away from him or her. This is human nature - dragging another person back down to one's own "level". It is natural to feel disappointment when another person achieves a desirable thing when we ourselves could not.

Are we competing to get to heaven? If we succeed in emulating God and building a family according to His divine model, does there have to be a "runner-up?". Does one guy win the race at the expense of all the begrudging losers who look on in disappointment and resentment? Will there be too few good women left in the world?

I watch the progress of the Canadian polygamy reference case (S.293) and wonder if certain men just don't want other men to be successful polygamists and to walk in our Father's footsteps. That idiot A.G., Craig Jones, seems to be arguing that all kinds of orgiastic promiscuity constitute healthy, "good" polygamy, and that the law should carefully, "surgically" protect them. He goes on to argue that the men who build up righteous plural families (according to the doctrines and precepts of the holy scriptures) are "bad" polygamists and must be prosecuted. Perhaps Jones (in concert with others) sees all this as a competition. He knows he is not cut out to win the race, so he is already trying to puncture Lance Armstrong's tires - to keep him from winning, too (like a "re-distribution" of wealth and success).

Does he not realize that God loves him, too? Does he not understand that, in the divine system of progress, all of God's children can win? Not everyone can win the Tour de France, and, in truth, only a few people really want to. They have other, even more rewarding things to do with their lives. Does he forget that, just because he cannot and will not enter the New and Everlasting Covenant, he does not need to persecute those who do enter it? Does he not realize that, despite his handicaps and natural disabilities, his Heavenly Father still loves him and works every day to help him to magnify his potential and receive rich blessings in the hereafter? Or, is he a pouty, sulky, Lost Boy who is convinced that this is a universe of austerity, where there will never be "enough to go round"?

I think you understand the several points I am trying to make, the most important of which, perhaps, is that the widespread resentment of polygamists, the desire to curtail them and eradicate them seems to be a function of jealousy, of leveling, of competition. I know a man who has four wives. He is a good man. His monogamous friends naturally look up to him. I know they are quietly jealous, but they don't want to take his wives away from him. Then again, I know some guys who don't really even want ONE wife. So, to each his own - live and let live. Some people want to excel in the bike-riding world. Some want to excel in the family-building realm. It is no more realistic to outlaw polygamy than it is to outlaw competitive sports (despite the fact that, in both, there will inevitably be some who fall down).

Perhaps we would be better off looking at the race for eternal rewards as a "team" sport rather than as an individual one. Is that not how the Divine Champion did it? Shall we not cheer that He vanquished death and hell?

Dirty Pool

Today in West Jordan's Third District Court, Warren Jeffs' attorney, Walter F. Bugden argued before Judge Terry Christiansen that his client should be protected from extradition for the following three reasons:

1. The two states' (Utah's and Texas') governors made an extradition agreement which was unconstitutional on its face (it promised to deny Jeffs bail forever).

2. The Utah ("rape-as-an-accomplice") case is still hanging over Jeffs' head as prosecutors waffle around over whether they will seek to re-try him (you know they won't, because Elissa Wall has been found out as a liar and a fraud). Jeffs is entitled to a speedy trial and an opportunity to clear his name.

3. Jeffs has already served 50 months in jail for alleged crimes for which he has not been found to be guilty. Those alleged crimes are now a decade old and, if Jeffs is whisked off to Texas, then his defense team will be foreclosed from using the power of the litigation process to investigate the deceit perpetrated on the court by Elissa Wall - and who knows how many more years will pass by before he can return to Utah to have his day in court?

Judge Christiansen ruled against Jeffs, saying that it was not his province to overrule the discretion of the two Governors. Bugden told the judge that, if he did not reverse the extradition or at least grant a stay, Bugden would file an appeal to the Utah Supreme Court court to prevent the state from putting Jeffs on a plane tonight.

Reports just came in that (before the state could whisk Jeffs to Barbieland) the Utah Supreme Court instructed the (lower) appellate court to address the appeal. Apparently the appeals court has just ruled that the extradition must be stayed, so that it can hear the case against extradition - which case (I believe) is a strong one. We'll see.

This whole deal smells rotten to me. The hatred for Jeffs is so pervasive in some quarters that the prosecutors are resorting to dirty pool. It will be interesting to see what will happen if the appeals court rules against Jeffs. Would the Utah Supreme Court then review it? I hope so.

Thank God the goons were not able to stick him on a plane. Who knows how much more difficult it would have been for even the Utah Supreme Court to force Texas to fly him back here?

"The best laid plans . . . . . "

Hobson's Choice

I'm turning blue holding my breath and waiting for the outcome of the British Columbia polygamy reference case. Yes, I think it's stupid, but I am fascinated to watch the jousting and learn the eventual outcome.

As I thought some more about the impact of this charade, I realized a couple of interesting things. If the Court ultimately rules to retain the anti-polygamy law (S.293), how will it get implemented? First, will all the existing polygamists get a free pass, a "grandfather clause"? Will the law apply only to new polygamists, or will the Mounties swoop in and arrest all the polygamists who, for a hundred years, have witnessed the law NEVER being used? I mean, didn't they have a reasonable expectation of safety and protection? Will the police throw all of the women in prison, too, because they willfully flouted Craig Jones' distorted interpretation of the law? - the interpretation that says that women who CHOOSE plural marriage are just as much perpetrators as the husband they chose? Can B.C. afford to orphan and raise all those bright little kids?

Secondly, if the law were to be enforced immediately, how would the current polygamists regain their innocence? Would they have to meet with a representative of social services and state which wives they are going to abandon? I am reminded of the Church's insanity (circa 1910) when it actively encouraged heads of household to dump the "extra" wives in order to please the government.

I think the people arguing for the eradication of polygamy in Canada are either barbarians or they have not thought through the consequences of their hubris. It is reminiscent of those bastards who stormed into the YFZ Ranch and smugly confiscated those 439 children under the guise of "saving" them from harm. If there are that many Nazi socialists in both countries, our future is grim. Again, I pray that they will see reason and common sense, and remember the principles of liberty which drove so many to sail westward across the Atlantic.

Double Standard

I just learned that the LDS Church has modified language in its Handbook of Instructions (see this link).

The thrust of the changes appears to be an acceptance of gay people as members of the Church, provided that they can refrain from acting on their gay inclinations. Language condemning gay thoughts and feelings (and recommending counseling) has been stricken.

I pray that the long-awaited day will eventually come when I will not be looked upon as a criminal, a sinner and an adulterer for having polygamous thoughts and feelings.

For a list of the women for whom Joseph Smith harbored polygamous thoughts and feelings, go HERE.

Irony? ( - or capitulation to public pressure?)

No Legs

I get more excited every day to watch the three-ring circus coming to the little hamlet of Vancouver B.C.

Ontario just legalized decriminalized prostitution. Saskatchewan recently decriminalized polygamy (or having one civil and one common-law marriage). Homosexual marriages have been permitted for years across the nation.

I was driving home one day listening to NPR public radio. That day's show was about birds - dying birds. The guest was being interviewed about her organization and its passionate mission - a mission to save birds from death. Apparently, every year, thousands of innocent birds fly blithely into the glass windows of tall, urban skyscraper buildings (and die swiftly as a result), and this has some bird-lovers' knickers in a twist. "It's not right," they complain, "something must be done about it."

I thought perhaps I had a leak in my manifold and was hallucinating from the inhalation of exhaust fumes in my car. I think the organization wanted to ban the use of glass for windows on tall buildings. It reminded me of the people who want polygamy to stop. I think you'd make more progress trying to prohibit grass from growing.

The rather amateurish lawyers and advocates who are crying for the preservation of Canada's anti-polygamy law (S.293) have a similarly steep hill to climb. It appears they have two possible angles of attack when challenging the practice of polygamy:

1. Attack the individuals who are and have been polygamists.
2. Attack the concept of polygamy.

Let's look at the first one. I know some very bad polygamist people. I know some very bad monogamist people. I know some very bad homosexual people. I know some very bad single people. Perhaps we should ban polygamy, monogamy, homosexuality, and celibacy, then there would be no bad people anymore. Just because a polygamous guy raped his ten-year-old daughter (this is a hypothetical) last year, should we say that empirical and anecdotal data demonstrate that polygamists are child-molesters? The causal, logical relationship is not there. If that kind of pathetic, whiner logic held any water, then the moment a Catholic priest molests a young boy, the Catholic Church must be dissolved. So this argument has NO LEGS.

Now let's examine number two. Polygamy is often a deeply resented idea. Some people deeply resent the "idea" of firearms. If you cannot justifiably attack the practitioners of polygamy, maybe you will attack the concept of polygamy. "Polygamy is inherently bad" they say. "Polygamy injures infants' brains." "Polygamy weakens society." "Polygamy harms the institution of holy matrimony." Perhaps polygamy should be arrested and put in prison, along with all those rifles and handguns that have murdered innocent humans.

If you cannot arrest a gun and sentence it to prison for the killing of a victim, how then can you convict polygamy and incarcerate it? Surely we are not that stupid. I think you have to be a bleeding-heart liberal to entertain such crap-thinking in your brain. You have to seriously want to distort truth in order to seize control over other people's lives. You have to believe that you know best how to run other people's families. If the motivation has no basis in common logic, then it must spring from political socialism. This argument has NO LEGS either!

They won't be calling me (li'l ol' Renn) to testify at that Reference trial but, if they did, I would keep repeating the same simple questions:

"How will you enforce this stupid law if it gets upheld?"

"Won't you have to interrogate all the copulators in Canada?"

"What line of questioning will you adopt? - 'Are you a Fundamentalist Mormon or a mere polyamorist? Are you trying to take this hooker as a plural wife? How many different women did you penetrate this month? When you became involved with your secretary, were you hoping your wife would let her join your family? Do you live within a 35-mile radius of Bountiful, B.C.? Was this a recreational orgy or was a pastor there to officiate?'"

A corrupt people will end up with a corrupt government. It was decided no later than 1865 that the united states of America would no longer be a Christian Republic, rather it would become a secular corporation renamed the "United States of America". You cannot have it both ways, folks. If you are going to kick God out of government, then you cannot allow religious partisanship to control legislation, and the same is true in Canada. It is the people's inability to understand this simple concept that causes so much friction and chaos.

I pray that both nations will rectify at least this problem with their dying breaths.

Manipulation

Years ago, when Tom Green was convicted of bigamy, I was struck by a couple of things.

First, Tom Green was SINGLE. He was legally married to NO ONE. Judge (I believe it was) Donald Eyre needed to find a way to get Tom Green to be guilty, so he declared Linda Kunz legally married to Tom. Linda didn't want that, so she told the judge she wanted an immediate divorce. Judge Eyre refused.

When it came time for the jury verdict, the Provo, Utah, jury had to decide the following: Was Tom married to someone? (Judge Eyre had guaranteed that); and Did Tom have children by another lady? (that was a given). So, what could the jury decide? Unless they understood the important principle of Jury Nullification, it was inevitable that Tom would have to be judged GUILTY. It wasn't right, but the careful manipulation of the legal system achieved the desired result.

Yesterday, Keith Dutson (now 25) was found guilty of sexual assault of a fifteen-year-old.

Keith was twenty (20) when he married his wife. Basically teenage sweethearts. They are monogamists. Both sets of parents were supportive of the marriage (a religious marriage). The couple is still together. The wife became pregnant after she turned sixteen.

Keith is about to be sentenced by a San Angelo jury. The term could be 20 years.

So, again you see a manipulation of the legal system by the judge, prosecutor, sheriff, and a pack of hater-nasties including Becky Musser and Dr. Larry Beall. Tell me the name of the last 20-year-old Texan who went to prison for impregnating his 16-year-old wife.

This young couple - this kid - is completely innocent, but will likely go to prison because of political agendas, religious prejudice, and manipulations of the legal system.

"Two Forms Of Polygamy"

The forces of good and evil are amassing on either side of the simmering polygamy war in Canada. You know I'm already cracking up about some aspects of this "reference" case, aspects like:

1. You are guilty of polygamy if merely accused. The law itself is SO POORLY written and so constitutionally defective, it ought to fall - on its face.
2. The polyamorists are saying that their kind of multiple partnerships is more healthy than that of polygamists. They want to be exempt from the law.
3. If the STUPID polygamy law is upheld in the reference's decision, it will inevitably be challenged again and tested very shortly afterwards.
4. There are so few polygamists in Canada, the vast majority of the amici and affiants are from south of the border.
5. Even gays ridicule the law - see this post.

Anyway, in my browsing around on this topic, I discovered the following statement from British Columbia's Attorney General, Craig Jones.

Jones's (unenviable) job is to defend the anti-polygamy law. Defending it is such a fantastical exercise, he clearly had to cook up some very creative reasoning. Let me quote some of Jones's lunatic contortions of logic:

'At one extreme, "polygamous" in the zoological sense describes an organism that will engage in mating behaviour with more than one partner in the course of its reproductive life. By this standard, most Canadians are "polygamous" and most "polygamy" is innocent.'

OKAY, JONES, WE ARE WITH YOU SO FAR! Let's read on as he argues . . .

'. . . the prohibition in s. 293 should be interpreted as follows:
. . . Section 293 prohibits . . . marriage-like relationships involving more than two persons that purport to be sanctioned by an authority having power or influence over the participants . . '

. . . WHAT? "AN AUTHORITY" LIKE GOD ?????????? Are you grasping this tortured hairsplit? Let's hear his punchline . . .

'8. The Criminal Code prohibition was and is addressed to the overwhelmingly dominant form of polygamy, [he's talking about Fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims] and the one most closely associated with demonstrable and apprehended social harms: that is, a patriarchal polygyny that is intergenerationally normalized and enforced through more or less coercive rules and norms of non-state social institutions. Section 293 leaves the balance of multi-partner human sexual behaviour, that which is unrelated to the harms the prohibitions seek to address, unaffected.'

I get it now - promiscuity in the form of casual polygamous behaviour is healthy, innocent and worthy of Canada's full legal protections (like prostitution now is), whereas informal plural marriages inspired by deeply-held religious beliefs and Biblical doctrines are reprehensible and "criminal".

So, here is where I get horribly confused - if "most Canadians are polygamous" (at least approx. 18 million of the 33.5 million Canadians), then how can Winston's and Jimmy's form of polygamy (practiced by scores of people) be the "overwhelmingly dominant form" ??? (Canadian math?)

Moreover, if the bad "form" of the two forms of polygamy is the one that purportedly involves higher "authority" and "patriarchy", shouldn't all religious, monogamous marriages also be outlawed; - AND, shouldn't all monogamous partnerships (legally-solemnized or not) - where the male is thought of as the "head-of-household" - be prohibited, too?

Message to A.G. Craig Jones - - - GO BACK TO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND RE-TAKE ALL THOSE CLASSES YOU SLEPT THROUGH !!!! Only then will you be able to competently teach all those year-long classes to the Mounties, where you will try to explain all of the convoluted nuances of figuring out which polygamists are the good, innocent ones, and which ones are the bad, incarcerable ones.

SHURTLEFF'S WAR

If I hyper-reacted every time somebody on the Internet was wrong about something, - - well, you know. . . .

I can't resist this one, though. Today I read a preview of a new book on the following website. The author is Debra Weyermann. I haven't seen the book yet, so I don't know whether to be glad that somebody finally exposed Shurtleff's blatant, self-serving agenda, or to laugh at the hysterical assertions purportedly made in the book. My two-bit comments are inserted in ALL CAPS and [ . . . . ] brackets.

"The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has been notorious for more than a century. [NOT SURE HOW, SINCE IT WAS ONLY FOUNDED IN THE LATE 1980's.] Though its core tenant [IT'S "TENET", MY DEAR] of embracing multiple wives is illegal in every state [NO, IT'S NOT, YOU DIMWIT!], the sect flourished undeterred throughout the American west, Canada and Mexico [WHERE IN MEXICO?!], amassing enormous wealth even as its membership subsisted on tens of millions of welfare dollars [WHAT PROOF DOES SHE HAVE OF THIS?]. The public saw FLDS victims only sporadically when they escaped the sect with terrible stories of incest, rape, young girls battered bloody [NAME TWO BLOODY, BATTERED FLDS GIRLS, YOU IDIOT!!] for refusing to marry old men and even murder. Yet authorities intimidated by FLDS's substantial block[SIC] vote and fearful of becoming the target of religious bigotry accusations refused to act. It seemed FLDS was invincible, until Mark Shurtleff was elected Utah's attorney general in 2000. A Mormon himself, Shurtleff engaged in no hand wringing over the religious rights [NO, HE'S NOT A FAN OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT] of a sect he considered a criminal cult. Using dazzling [I'M NOT DAZZLED] legal maneuvers, audacious persuasion and plain brute force [NO KIDDING !!!], Shurtleff faced down FLDS "blood oath" death threats and the powers of the status quo as he took the group apart piece by piece [I MUST HAVE MISSED THE TAKING APART STUFF]. His victories convinced the authorities in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico [NEW MEXICO !!!???], Colorado, Nevada and even Canada that tackling FLDS did not have to be a pipe dream as they joined Shurtleff's innovative and mostly [YEAH, NOT-COMPLETELY-]legal crusade. Today FLDS's $120 million trust has been seized and liquidated [WHEN WAS IT LIQUIDATED?], its businesses auctioned off, its school districts and police forces dismantled, its property dispersed and its leaders jailed. In SHURTLEFF'S WAR, award-winning journalist and author Debra Weyermann reveals the powerful, unknown [YEP, I KNEW NOTHING BEFORE THIS BOOK!] story of a man who risked everything [EXCEPT HIS POLITICAL CAREER] to do what was right [HOW WAS IT RIGHT ???]. A legal thriller, a detective story and an action-laced gambit, SHURTLEFF'S WAR is also the portrait of a complicated [NOW, THAT'S A EUPHEMISM !!!] man who defied [DEFIED !!!! - YOU MEAN "OBEYED"] his own church and state government to put an end to a sect (WHERE DID IT END ???] that has dotted American history with murder [WHO MURDERED WHOM IN SHORT CREEK?] and scandal for 100 years."

I think Debra Weyermann's middle name must be Krakauer.

Finally, I am including this LINK to a video made by Mark Shurtleff, where he makes an impassioned plea for the release of Warren Jeffs, arguing that Warren is just as much a man, just as worthy of full citizenship as he, Shurtleff is. He urges the disadvantaged to come together and use "the system" to fight for justice. Maybe you'll see the irony, too.

I wish that when I get to the pearly gates I could bring with me a book detailing my war on the Saints and on the everlasting doctrines restored by Joseph Smith . . . . .

Unholy Alliance

The Salt Lake Tribune published an article today, reporting that Warren Jeffs is fighting extradition to Texas. If I were Warren Jeffs, I would fight extradition too - not only because Utah should "poop or get off the pot" (see my previous post about the Supreme Hypocrisy), but also because the "conspiracy" mentioned in the Tribune article is very real.

Utah's and Texas's governors are not my favorite people. All that notwithstanding, my dim opinion of them is not as relevant as the facts. I shall not post the entire text of Jeffs' extradition order here - I'll leave that to my illustrious fellow bloggers. What you will see in the excerpt I shall quote below, however, is that the extradition agreement is unconstitutional, fraudulent and conspiratorial.

Many have claimed that Jeffs' efforts to avoid extradition are futile. Let's examine that. What are the three circumstances which can successfully block extradition?

1. You are not the same person as the person named in the extradition order (Warren won't win that argument).
2. What you are accused of is not a crime in the State which is trying to extradite you (no luck there, either).
3. There is a constitutional flaw in the the extradition papers . . . . . . HMMM!

Let's look at number 3. In Warren's extradition papers, the two governors strike up an agreement that, in exchange for Utah surrendering Jeffs to Texas, Texas agrees to guarantee that he absolutely be denied bail. Here is the exact wording -

"It is further hereby agreed that, upon surrender of Warren Steed Jeffs to the duly authorized agents of the state of Texas, Warren Steed Jeffs shall be held in the Custody of the state of Texas at all times, and shall not be eligible for release on bail or bond.

In witness whereof, the undersigned governor of the state of Texas and governor of the state of Utah do hereby covenant and agree that the above expressed conditions upon which the custody of Warren Steed Jeffs is granted shall be in all respects fuliflled and complied with and are expressly accepted as the terms and conditions of his custody (p.3 of EXHIBIT A)"

WHAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTFWTT?

Let's see - who grants or denies bail? ANSWER - BARBAROUS WART-THUG (she is in the JUDICIAL BRANCH).

What branch of government is Gov. Perry in? ANSWER - the EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

So, pray tell me, how does a member of the executive branch arrange to foreclose all possibility of Warren's being granted bail? Does he have to bribe Barbie (or worse - share unholy intimacies with her)? Perish the thought!

I've said it before and I'll say it again - when these double-dealing government officials conspire to do secret works of darkness, it inevitably comes back to bite them. It's almost as if they can do evil things OR have an I.Q., but they cannot accomplish both at the same time.

I am ashamed of the two gov's for presuming to uphold a high office of government while stooping to such despicable depths to curry the favor of deceivers. Jeffs is currently innocent in all jurisdictions. I find Herbert and Perry guilty of conspiracy and treachery at least. Let's hope Snotlick wasn't involved, too . . . .

Monkeys On The Beach

A few years ago, a friend shared with me a parable that stuck firmly in my brain. I think it has changed and assumed new meaning, but anyway here it is as best I can regurgitate it:
---------------------------------------------------------------------








Long, long ago, on a far-away island in the balmy Pacific Ocean, there lived a troop of monkeys. They played happily in the sun and often ventured into the surf. Their diet consisted primarily of yams. Boring, yes, but that was the produce afforded by their island habitat.

One drawback of living in this sandy environment was that the monkeys' food would get sand in it. Yuck !!!

As the years rolled blissfully on, there occurred one day a rather pivotal event. One of the younger monkeys happened to carry one of his yams with him into the waves as he went for his morning swim. As he walked back onto the beach, he started to eat his yam. Lo and behold - this yam was not gritty and crunchy. He had never experienced the taste of a sand-free yam. What a delight! He had eaten only gritty yams since infancy, just like his parents and siblings. Not being able to communicate this discovery to his fellow monkeys, he resolved nevertheless to attempt this experiment again the next day.

At sunrise the next day, he took two yams with him into the ocean waves. He shook and rinsed them vigorously in the clear, salty water. Then, holding them high above his head, he ran back to his family and sat down to eat them. Before he could take the first bite, his little brother snatched one of the yams away and hurriedly ate it. So surprised was the little one by this marvelous taste improvement, he became determined to follow his brother around to discover the provenance of this much improved foodstuff.

The next morning, the little monkey watched his brother rinsing his yams in the ocean. The secret was out. Before long, the entire troop of monkeys learned to rinse the yams before eating them, and, never again did they have to endure gritty food.

More years went by and, one day, the younger monkey decided to venture farther away from his familiar beach than he had ever dared to before. As he wandered along the shoreline and southward towards the sun, he feared that he might not be able to make it back to his family, yet his curiosity got the better of him, so onward he scampered. As the sun began to set, he noticed something moving in the distance. Undaunted, he approached the location of the movements.

Unbelievable! Though he could not believe his eyes, he had to accept what he was seeing. Here was another troop of monkeys - monkeys he never knew existed. They were so far from his beach. Did his family know of their existence? Had any of the monkeys ever known of each other's existence before? Was he the first to discover this population of possible kinfolk?

Not wanting to create a disturbance, he lay low and hid himself behind a huge palm tree, observing quietly. As he watched in the waning sunlight, he noticed several of the monkeys methodically rinsing yams in the shallow ocean water. How could it be? How did they discover this wisdom - this revelation? How on earth did they learn that it was better to eat their yams without sand?  At once jealous and proud, he scratched his furry head and wrestled with this anguishing question:

Had his older brother traveled here before him and taught this remote monkey-troop the art of yam-rinsing?

- - - - OR

Had this heretofore-undiscovered monkey-troop stumbled on this priceless gem of wisdom all on its own?

As he turned to hasten back to the anxiously-awaiting arms of his own family, he realized the answer to his question. It dawned on him that it did not matter how it came to be that the two monkey populations embraced this timeless dietary wisdom. It was not important that someone get the credit for this momentous discovery or for the dissemination of this vital knowledge. It mattered only that they had it and that both populations were forever blessed by it.

How Can He Fix It?

Here is a comment in Friday's NATIONAL ENQUIRER (forgive the TERRIBLE grammar) - -

"The Brown family is following the teachings of fundamentalist Mormonism, which is drawing heat from the Mormon Church, which disavowed the practice of polygamy in 120 years ago. The practice is also illegal in Utah, which has caused investigators there to looking into possible filing charges of felony bigamy against Brown. If that were to happen and he was found guilty, he could spend five years in prison. "

This got me to thinking about the whole rehabilitation process. Kody would spend five years in the Utah State Prison. His wives would visit him each week. They would write him letters, and TLC would film the wives and kids in his absence. Maybe the prison would let the cameramen film Kody in his striped jumpsuit. After the five (or 3.5 for good behavior) years were up, it would be time for Kody to return home to his loving family, fully rehabilitated.

I think I need your help as I try to figure out what happens next. I mean, the wives are loyal - I don't think they'd bolt that quickly. Only one of Tom Green's wives left. Perhaps Prosecutor Buhman (and maybe Davey Lefttit) would set up some kind of re-insertion program. Three of the wives would have to move to different states, and Kody would have to choose which one he wants to designate as the sole monogamous partner. Lehi police would have to put surveillance cameras in all the rooms of the house, in order to make sure that Kody has sex with only one person in a given year. God knows how we would split up all those cute kids.

Failing this, they would have to re-arrest Kody after two or three days, have a whole new trial, and put him away for another five years. This cycle would have to be repeated twice every decade until Kody dies, and he is no longer guilty of being a polygamist in his heart.

Another alternative would be to have Kody enroll in Boyd K. Packer's sexual de-programming/brainwashing course. This would make Kody be unable to fall in love with, or be attracted to, anyone but just one of the four ladies. After all, sexual attraction is inculcated by one's religion and upbringing. Polygamist churches raise children to love polygamously. Homosexual churches raise children to be homosexuals. This is why right-thinking governments must outlaw all but monogamous churches (and seize the property of all the others).

So how can Kody fix this terrible mess? Well, let's conduct a reader poll. Please cast your vote now as to which wife he should keep and which three he should dump.

A. Meri
B. Janelle
C. Christine
D. Robyn
E. All of the above
F. None of the above

If I can be serious (for about four seconds), it appears to me that the term of the prison sentence for religious polyga-bigamy must either be -

1. Life without parole (since rehabilitation never works) or -
2. No prison sentence at all.

This "five-year" concept is as chicken-s**t and disingenuous as the illustrious Church lawyers who codified it in the first place.

PROVE ME WRONG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Illegal In "All Fifty States"?

Famous actor, Ashton Kutcher (whose is married to Demi Moore - 15 years his senior), appears to be preparing to test California's bigamy statutes. Kutcher's alleged mistress, 22-year old Brittney Jones has revealed information regarding her dalliances with Kutcher and claimed that he and Moore have an "open marriage" = read "plural marriage" or "polygamy". Jones even intimated that the threesome has gone much further than the conduct of "traditional polygamists" in that they have engaged in group sex together (which conduct is only protected by the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas).

Still being under the illusion that this kind of bigamous conduct is "illegal in all fifty states", Utah County prosecutor, Jeff Buhman, is "mulling over" whether to press charges against Kutcher, Moore and Jones for felony bigamy. However, his office is still researching whether the LDS Church has power over the California legal system since its humiliating Proposition 8 experience.

Buhman fears that Kutcher may show up on his doorstep with a film crew, only to pounce on him and declare that he has been "Punk'd".

How difficult could it be?

I have watched the news reports with interest over the last few days. Some online articles get updated, so the wording can change. My first glimpse at a statement from Utah County prosecutor, Jeff Buhman, had him saying that, now that he has the completed investigation evidence from Lehi police regarding the Brown family's bigamy crime, it could take "several months" to reach a decision on whether to prosecute.

Later statements seem to have been changed or softened. Now he is saying that his office is "mulling over" the matter and is, in fact, fascinated that in the last "10 to 15" years there haven't been (to his knowledge) any prosecutions of consenting adult religious bigamists. How could he forget the prosecution of Mark Easterday (1999) of Monroe, Utah, for bigamy? Mark was allowed to plead the charge down to adultery and pay a $500.00 fine. Later research into the court documents shows no mention of the original bigamy charge. Hmmmmm !!! ???

Anyway, while the Brown family sits huddled around its fireside, sweating bullets over whether the SturmTruppen will be at its door at any minute with five sets of handcuffs, Jeff Buhman sits in his office for months on end, wringing his hands and feet, wrestling mightily over whether to charge this dastardly, evil family with felony marriage crimes.

I ask myself - "How difficult could it be to simply pick up the phone and call the First Presidency and ask them if they want Kody incarcerated?" This controversy could be put to bed in minutes, and we could all go back to our daily lives in peace and brotherly love.

Whistleblowers

Yeah, I know, I'm posting a lot. If it's getting to be too much, just read every other post. Somebody should write a book - I mean a book about LDS resentment of polygamists. It's a 1,000-pound gorilla. Snarklips mouthed off in a tweet the other day about his preference for his mainstream monogamist homies in the Lehi P.D. Loosely translated - he is saying that he hates polygamists and that he only esteems his fellow Corporate Mormons. It's thinly veiled. Plygs are anathema. Why?

I don't think it is because guys don't want extra babes - they do! I once worked in a company where almost all the guys were "mainstream" LDS. Most violated the Word of Wisdom habitually, and most spent hours whining about how badly they wanted to get with this woman or that woman. Their wives probably didn't know. The fidelity to monogamy was feigned. Yes, I think that most men wouldn't want four permanent wives, if only because of all that dedication and responsibility. Guys are lazy. Many want extra chicks, but they only want them for a few days. That's the difference between decent polygamists and lascivious philanderers. One has integrity, the other doesn't.

Perhaps some men resent the polygamy discussion because they need to keep up the pretense to their wives that they think "only about you, dear". Maybe some shudder at the topic because they belong to a church which has drummed into their heads for a century that they can only have those extra women in the hereafter (no comparison with Muslims). Perhaps they are quietly jealous.

Even sadder is the pervasive indoctrination of young LDS women - the insistence that 19th century plural marriage was an anomaly, an aberration; and that 21st century polygamy is disgusting and filthy. When those sweet, deeply-brainwashed sisters get to the other side and learn that plural marriage always has been a requirement for exaltation, will they mutiny entirely from the everlasting gospel and covenant?

Face it folks, the Church looks on polygamy like Superman views green Kryptonite. I want to advance the premise that it is because we are "whistleblowers". When a whistleblower leaks information about a company which dumps toxic ooze into the environment, the company harbors deep hatred for the whistleblower. Maybe longtime employees share the corporate rage, because their well-being is also threatened by the disclosure of uncomfortable truths.

Tens of thousands of missionaries span the globe propagating the Restored Gospel. When inquisitive investigators inquire about polygamy, the canned answer bubbles out - "The Lord gave a revelation to President Wilford Woodruff to terminate the practice." So, we are whistleblowers because the Church knows that this canned response is a lie, and that we adamantly and openly stand by our conviction that, since 1889, no president of the Church has received and written down a verbatim revelation from God.

Annual temple-recommend interviews petulantly admonish every member to steer a thousand miles away from apostates (read - "Fundamentalists"). Why? because we know the real truth - The Church lied - and not only about Woodruff and his "Manifesto" (Woodruff took another wife six years after the Manifesto). The Church had the identity of God plainly trumpeted from the Tabernacle pulpit and memorialized in its hymns. In 1902, in the face of intense public pressure, the identity of the God of the Old Testament was conveniently switched from Michael to Jesus (one is reminded of the Catholic Church's rescission of "Limbo").

So that's my take. When you have whistleblowers who can reveal your deceits, you have to go to any lengths to demonize, marginalize, vilify and discredit them. I could accept that I might be off-track, but take a look at where the hatred centers. If you took a poll asking whether polygamists "should be imprisoned and have their children confiscated", the percentage of 'yes' responses would be greater in Utah than in any other state or country. The consummate irony (as one sage soul observed) is that, were Abraham or Jacob or Joseph or Brigham to surface in our Mormon midst today, they would be excommunicated and incarcerated (not to mention Jesus Himself).

I invoke once again "The Emperor's New Clothes". Could thirteen million possibly be wrong?

Seismic Shift

I want again to thank the Browns for playing the civil disobedience card and permanently changing the discussion about polygamy. For a couple of decades I have watched polygamists be universally vilified. If you bash gay people or make racial remarks, you will lose your career faster than you can say "fag" or "niggardly". Conversely, however, it is entirely fashionable and P.C. to disparage polygamists. My kids regularly report that a teacher of theirs made a snarky comment in class about polygs (with impunity). This is all because it is generally understood that polygamists marry eleven-year-olds, savage their wives and support their families entirely on welfare and food stamps.

I see a seismic shift in the polygamy discussion, and I venture to say that it is permanent. Here are the three primary areas of shift:

1. PUBLIC OPINION: Kody Brown is lovable, if awkward. His wives are convincing and real. The general public will soon side with the Browns. It will soon be fashionable to root for them and their well-being. Prosecute them at the risk of enraging tens of millions of TLC devotees.

2. LAW ENFORCEMENT: This week gave us a tepid legal showdown between the Browns and the Church Police/AG's office. The Elephant in the middle of the room is called John Geddes Lawrence, and the Church wants nothing to do with a bigamy (dumb) statute test case (which could overturn Reynolds).

3. MORMON SQUIRMING: The Church has endeavored for a century to fool all Americans into thinking that polygamy is criminal, sinful and downright disgusting. When you lie for that long, eventually at least one little kid or a smart student of the gospel will wake up and admit that the Emperor is naked and the myth is exploded. Intelligent LDS members may actually choose to watch "Sister Wives" even while jeopardizing their membership cards.

Perhaps now Fundamentalist Mormons can venture outside and go to cinemas and Wal-Marts without fear of incarceration or lynchings. Maybe now those "Holding Out Hatred" groups can close up shop and tear down their condescending billboards.

On another note, Canada (Ontario) just announced that it is repealing all laws against prostitution. Just another example of a bumbling, hypocritical law-enforcement system whose left hand has no clue what its right hand is doing.

Maybe we will, Maybe we won't

It's all about power. A representative of Utah's AG announced yesterday that, despite its policy of not prosecuting religious polygabigamists, it has no control over whether the pretty, great City of Lehi and Utah County will proceed with a prosecution.

A couple of weeks ago, Iran released the female hiker it had detained for almost a year. There was much rejoicing. Her two male companions are still in an Iranian prison. Maybe Iran will free them, maybe it won't. Who has the power? - the hikers or Ahmedinejad? If you have power, you can flex it; and Iran has power, so it flexes it. Meanwhile the boys sit shivering in a dark Persian dungeon and wonder if they can ever be safe or happy again.

Utah's bigamy statute serves a salutary government purpose - it permits bullies like Ahmedinejad and the LDS Church to wield and flex power over those whom they consider to be beneath them. When LDS/government officials menace and bully otherwise innocent polygamists by saying, "Maybe we will prosecute, maybe we won't," then polygamists have to run and hire attorneys. They have to think about relocating to a non-bullying state like Wyoming or Mexico(?). They bite their fingernails down to their elbows. Their children cry themselves to sleep and ask their moms, "Mommy, is daddy going to jail?". That much power must feel really good, mustn't it?

One of the core principles of the original states of America is that we would not have "Titles of Nobility". Likewise, there was no provision for "second-class citizens". Today we have approximately 38,000 second-class citizens within the borders of the American Corporation. These people are left to sit and wonder if they will or won't be prosecuted by a statute that will or won't be enforced by law enforcement officials who will or won't admit that they like the statute, if only because it lets them look down their noses at the polygamists and threaten them when it looks like they might start winning a hint of public sympathy.

Maybe it's time to pray for some intervention from the Biggest Bully. Maybe He'll flex His power - Maybe He won't . . . .

Two Sides Of The Mouth

There's an interesting paradox that puzzles me about the current criminal (bigamy) investigation into the Kody Brown family. Here's why I think it will go nowhere.

Our august A.G., Mark Shurtleff, has declared emphatically on numerous occasions that he will not prosecute consenting-adult polygamists. He has given a number of reasons why -

Insufficient witnesses and evidence.
Insufficient law-enforcement resources.
Insufficient penitentiary space.

Yes, I know you all know these excuses are bogus and are designed to quiet the media and the hater-nasties. The real reason is that the AG doesn't want to disturb the tenuous tentacles of the Reynolds decision and let the plygs invoke Lawrence, as they soon will in Texas.

Here's the real (little-known) kicker:

When Rodney Holm appealed his adult bigamy conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court declined to hear the case but, before declining, it exchanged exploratory pleadings with the two parties' attorneys. At the time of Holm's "crimes", there had been no "CHILD-BIGAMY" statute, so Utah could only attack Holm with the ADULT bigamy statute (despite the complaint that his "wife" was only 16). Utah's chief prosecutrix, Flora Yoplait, insisted to the court that a direct appeal of Utah's (nutty) bigamy statute was irrelevant, because Utah categorically ONLY prosecuted polygamists who had minor partners. She argued that Holm was only charged for relations with Ruth Subbs when Stubbs was a minor. Duplait was actually very wrong! What she had overlooked was that Holm's charging documents addressed alleged sex acts during the times when Stubbs was 16, 17, 18, and 19. In effect, Florplait was LYING to the Court! It WAS NOT TRUE that Holm was not also charged for adult bigamy.

Maybe that is a hairsplit, but Utah is definitely conflicted. Not long ago, hater-nasty Tapestry harpies waved the Jim Harmston/Rachael Strong case in the faces of Utah's AGs. They stood their ground and refused to pursue the case because Strong became a plural wife at 19.

It seems that there must be opposing pressures:

One side despises the polygamists and just wants them dead and gone - OFF WITH THEIR HEADS !!!! Prosecute, Convict, Incarcerate (AND orphan all the kids!).

The other side sees the writing on the Supreme Court's wall. Arrest a harmless plyg family like Kody's, and a bright, enthusiastic lawyer will run the case all the way to the highest court in the land - which court will have to acknowledge that just because a man has a legal wife and then has sex with a different (unmarried) woman, he cannot be charged with felony bigamy (unless we still live in the dark ages).

Is the Church/State establishment so boneheaded and myopic that it cannot anticipate the NATIONAL media circus and backlash that will ensue when it puts Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn behind bars? One almost wonders if Ciudad Juarez would be a safer home for innocent Americans and a Constitution gasping its last breath.

Stay tuned . . . .
-------------------------------------------
WAIT - Shurtleff just called Utah's KSTU (Channel 4) to announce that he will not prosecute the Browns. . . . . . YAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He did however say that he is "monitoring" the family for potential "other crimes" (WHAT? - like irritating the Church?).

Renn - "1" Naysayers - "0"

Isn't "monitoring" kind of a SOVIET concept . . . . ?

Hornets' Nest

Lehi police investigate ‘Sister Wives’ stars for bigamy

By Erin Alberty

The Salt Lake Tribune
Published Sep 27, 2010 06:41PM
Updated 2 minutes ago Updated Sep 27, 2010 07:00PM

Police have launched a bigamy investigation into the polygamous stars of a new reality TV series.

According to police, the investigation began several weeks ago, when TLC announced the creation of “Sister Wives,” a show featuring Lehi advertising salesman Kody Brown and his four wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn Brown.

The show premiered Sunday.

TLC spokespeople said they had not learned of the investigation before being called by a Tribune reporter and had no further comment.
--------------------------------------------------------

Well, they've stirred up a hornets' nest now haven't they? Remains to be seen if the A.G. will opt for prosecution. I understand that 1,000 other polygamous families are preparing to turn themselves in for arrest for having "illegal" relationships (you know - like having a gay partner, etc.). Civil disobedience will get you everywhere.

Methinks the Mother-Corporate Church must have pulled this trigger. With its usually prudent P.R. decisions it did the very thing that will draw yet more attention to the benign TLC polygamy show.

Frankly, the way that the Browns represent their family, I almost wish I could become one of them. Their depiction of day-to-day polygamy is so gol'darned appealing that most mainstream LDS will likely defect as soon as they watch it. I can see it now . . . .

TEMPLE RECOMMEND INTERVIEW QUESTIONS:

#1. Do you follow the Brethren without question and without hesitation?
#2. Do you report anyone you know who differs with any of the Brethren's recent pronouncements?
#3. Do you watch TLC's Sister-Wives polygamy reality show? - - (if so, go straight to hell, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, and leave your temple recommend on my desk).

GO KODY, GO TLC !!!

I just watched episode number one of TLC's new Sister Wives series. Thank-you, TLC, and thank-you, Brown family. For more intimate commentary from the Browns themselves, go to: The Polygamy File (at the Salt Lake Tribune)

This moment represents a tectonic shift in the world and for the future of bigotry. Most people shudder at the idea of polygamy, but they likely do not even know why. I suggest that it is because they have not the first clue what polygamy is. I have no idea what a monster or an alien is like, but I surely am afraid of both.

I defy anyone to harbor hatred for Kody and Meri and Janelle and Christine after watching their show. You may have no desire to become a polygamist, but you can NEVER NEVER NEVER again say that "there is no such thing as a 'happy polygamist'."

The elephant is in the middle of the room and he just farted. Can you smell it? Okay, I'll translate - -

If I have to hear one more idiot reporter chanting the "it's illegal" refrain, I will vomit. For a good example, read this channel 4 news report: "Sister Wives" Program Could Lead to Legal Trouble. If polygamy is so fricking illegal, then I'll expect Snortleff's SturmTruppen on Kody's Lehi doorstep tomorrow morning with five sets of handcuffs. You did it with Tom Green, didn't you? You showed the Greens' appearances on the Oprah show in the courtroom, didn't you? Green was charged (and convicted) with adult bigamy, wasn't he? (just like Rodney Holm!).

You can't have your bloody cake and eat it, too. Put up or shut up!

Your choice - start arresting or start decriminalizing (what Lawrence already decriminalized!)

I applaud Bill Medvecky for his wry observation that Jesus must needs be arrested (in any of the "50 States") for being married to all of those nuns.

Is polygamy illegal in the same way in which it is illegal for coaches to swear in public?

In Your Face

Today I saw on the news that the LDS Church is introducing a new PR campaign to help American subjects become more familiar with the Corporate Church and its members. The news anchor wondered if this effort was all geared around promoting Mitt Romney to be the next President (not of the Church, but of America).

I love D&C 101 because it contains an exquisite parable about the master of the vineyard who delegates some servants to occupy a watchtower and keep watch over the vineyard. After a season, the flaky servants lose track of the purpose of the watchtower and contemplate selling it. When the master comes back, he gets pretty wroth with those servants for neglecting their mandate and letting the enemy break in.

49. Might not this money be given to the exchangers? For there is no need of these things.
50. And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.
51. And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive-trees.
52. Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil?
53. Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?
54. And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.

Where am I going with this? - - - well, the Church was given the fullness of the restored Gospel. After a season, it doubted the significance of the higher principles. It mortgaged the temples, changed the scriptures, diluted the doctrines and persecuted the stalwart and humble members who clung to the original precepts. Now the nobleman is soon to return, and He cannot be pleased. Does God need PR campaigns His works to fulfill?

The Church chafed over "Big Love" since it glamorized polygamists. This Sunday we'll see the pilot of TLC's "Sister Wives" series about the Kody Brown family. I quote Salt Lake Tribune's Vince Horiuchi:

"Likely, this is the kind of portrait of polygamy that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints hates. It’s a vision of plural marriage (which is illegal) that seemingly works in some cases and a reminder of a past the church wants to bury.

Yet if there is a reason to watch “Sister Wives,” it’s less for the drama in the household than for the charm and likability of the Brown family."

I have a vision of a large number of puffy men in dark blue suits in the great and spacious building (50 E. North Temple) popping blood vessels over this one. A couple of years ago, a Utah reporter went to Canada and photographed some of Winston Blackmore's children. The children were smiling, adorable, idyllic, endearing, charming and well-behaved. The reporter immediately received numerous stinging rebukes from readers who felt that it was simply intolerable for a newspaper to allow fundamentalist children to be presented in such a favorable light. I've read a number of blog commenters and noticed that they too are having unprecedented difficulty coming up with sane or sensible criticisms of TLC's polygamy reality show . . . .

"How can TLC stoop to present something so awful and so illegal?"
"Kody has awkward facial hair."
"They have to be on welfare."
"The women have big butts."
"Shame on TLC for putting this crap on TV!"
"The show is sleepy."
"We can't seem to stamp out this new and everlasting covenant."
"Isn't polygamy supposed to be illegal?"
"Polygamy is not a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' history."
"Polygamists want the "right" to make polygamy mandatory in their society."
"The law's the law. These felons need to be arrested."
"Women in general are the victims of this system."
"Let's just call TLC 'THE WEIRDO CHANNEL'."
"This plural marriage is a direct abomination of God's love."
"I just don’t want to pay for all of this man’s children."
"This is the most outrageous show I've ever heard of... nobody will watch."
"All Mormons are republicans, so I guess this disgusting lifestyle is just fine with them."
"The other wives are nothing more than mistresses."
"Oh, UGH. These people make my skin crawl."

So, dear readers, I challenge you to come up with a better criticism of the "Sister Wives" series. Actually, no, don't bother - you can't. Polygamy might be uncommon, but it is no less normal (and sometimes boring) than monogamy.

Five cheers to the Browns for risking their normalcy to present a perfectly truthful view of a plural family; and, to the Church which so desperately yearns to distance itself from one of its core, founding doctrines, I say, "IN YOUR FACE!" "Try arguing with reality!!!"

Hubris

My thoughts today are about hubris. Hubris is apparently a Greek word relating to extreme insolence or excessive arrogance. In my mind it has come to apply to a person who has lost his or her grasp on judiciousness, self-restraint and adherence to correct principles. I impute hubris to those people who take up a cause which they know is an attack on others, yet they feel that to execute the attack is more important than the direct and collateral fallout which may be inflicted on their target. I knew a man once who hated me so much that he could hardly sleep at nights. His ex-wife later told me that he tossed and turned at bedtime as he struggled to develop new ways to persecute me. I believe he was/is possessed. When an influence is "stronger than you are", it must be coming from an external source - a spirit which is striving to possess and control you.

I knew an anti-polygamist once who said, "I can never be at peace until those polygamists stop." It seems there are a good number of people who feel the same way. I promise them no peace. I am reminded of that movie, FALLEN, with Denzel Washington and John Goodman. A central theme of the movie is that there is an evil spirit which moves from one human to another, completely possessing each one. In the movie, only one person at a time is possessed. I fear that in real life the demonic possession is infectious and replicating. Look at the dozens of people in Utah, Arizona and Texas (and perhaps now Canada) who cannot rest until they have brought harm upon one or more polygamists. If they could congregate all 38,000 polygamists in a detention camp, would they shoot or gas them? Or would they just confiscate all the children and put the adults to work in a slave labor camp?

A few months back, a blogger named TX BluesMan took me to task for insisting that Warren Jeffs' rape-as-an-accomplice charge was bogus and unconstitutional. I deferred to his/her superior legal expertise, but I remained perplexed at his/her unflinching attack on people's freedom to arrange their families as they see fit (see Roe v. Wade 1973). It seems now that TX BluesMan and Rattily Balonis have both had to bite some serious bullet. See the post from Modern Pharisee on this subject. You'd think people would watch enough movies to learn that, when the bad, angry, hubristic folk get too carried away in their spite and arrogance, they eventually crash and burn and have to slink off in shame and humiliation.

I happen to think that abortion is never acceptable. I bet we kill two million innocent babies every year in the great Corporate United States. I do not feel driven, however, to spend my life and energies harassing and hounding their murdering mothers or the medical personnel who mutilate the fetuses. Do you think that is because I can't campaign for office on such a platform - or I can't get rich authoring a tell-all book on my painful experiences with abortionists? God has not called me on such a mission, and I don't believe He has called Barbarous Warthog or John Crackhounder on a mission to destroy the FLDS, either.

The FLDS are not perfect. Lord knows - the Amish are not perfect, either. Is that any reason for us to storm in and eradicate their societies? Is cultural genocide one of the important roles of government? To illustrate again the bizarre extent to which some arrogant public officials will go, I point your attention once again to the upcoming trial of an FLDS member - NO, not Wendell's, I mean Merril's.

Merril Jessop's trial is coming in a few weeks. He was merely indicted for performing an "illegal ceremony". That would be kind of akin to writing an "unlawful poem" or wearing a criminal logo on your T-shirt. Truth is - in countries like Latvia and Lithuania, the hammer and sickle emblem is prohibited. This is not Latvia or Lithuania; this is the Corporation of the United States, which nation still uses some parts of the original Constitution. Merril is being prosecuted for saying certain words in a certain room with certain other people present. Unless he was leaking classified national secrets to the Red Chinese, can someone tell me how what he did can possibly be construed to be a crime? (BluesMan feel free to chime in here.) Is the charge important enough to jeopardize his health and well-being and the association of his large, loving family?

I love my daughters and I pray they won't marry until their brains start working better. A hundred years ago, young marriages were normal. Nowadays we think differently, but what exactly did Merril do that was criminal?  Merril was never authorized by the state of Texas to solemnize legal weddings, so he cannot have even attempted to do so. What he did can only be considered free speech, free association and protected private expressions in the privacy of someone's residence. Maybe CPS (with its wildly lower standards) can intervene and complain that the conduct constituted some form of child abuse, but it has ostensibly dropped any such charges.

Like I said before, I am sure that a marriage between a cat and a dog is not legal and is void ab initio. If I wed my cat to my dog in my living room, can the SturmTruppen come and arrest me for solemnizing an illegal wedding ceremony? If this is what our nation has come to, I should move to Switzerland. At least there, there is less likelihood that my guns will be confiscated.

So much about our deeply socialistic government is about mothering us. We have created a nanny state. Problem is, Nanny is vicious and greedy and has fangs. Why is Obama calling (yesterday) for free education through college age? Does he want to indoctrinate a whole new generation of Balonises, Wisans, Lintbags, Walthers, Harferbrains, Hooligans, Mengels, Browbeaters, Hunshakers, Filschers, Snotleffs, Herberts and Perrys?

Polygamy is a sexy topic to campaign on. That doesn't mean it is right to exploit a harmless minority for political or financial gain.

Hubris comes before the fall. Let my people go!