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.