Like Hell I Won't

On Wednesday night I spent the evening at a security briefing by John Guandolo.

He covered a bunch of stuff I already knew.

During Q&A I asked him, in light of Daniel Pipes', with the Middle East Forum, assertion that polygamy is the most prevalent and dangerous aspect of Shariah law that the U.S. faces today, what did he think the federal government should do? I plainly identified myself as an anti-polygamy activist.

He shook his finger at me, strongly, and told me polygamy was not an issue and "You will not stop polygamy! You cannot stop polygamy!"

As you might imagine, I've been ruminating on that one for a while now. I walked out of that briefing, not upset, but resolute.

I'm certainly not surprised that this is the federal government's position on polygamy now. I'd just never heard one of them come right out and say it--out loud--for real.

The funny thing was as he was shaking that finger at me I wasn't thinking, "Oh no! What shall I do?" I was thinking, "Screw you, Bubba, screw you."

That's about what I left thinking of him, too.

I've tried telling people that the feds are already absolutely corrupt to the crime of polygamy, and people just look at me as though I have announced I was once abducted by an alien race... It's too much for them to process. The implications are too... well, nasty.

The subjugation of American women and children into a harmful form of slavery based on nothing but religious beliefs, called polygamy, is for some inexplicable reason considered not only harmless to women and children but something of "a right" for some men, as long as they continue to operate the whole slavery scam on a religious pretext... Good grief.

The only useful new information I learned at that "security briefing" Wednesday night, with Mr. Guandolo, is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute polygamy as a crime..and is now, obviously, with the nomination of Judge David Nuffer going to really rub it in all our faces.

I don't have anything else nice to say about Mr. Guandolo or the federal government, so I should probably just stop here but you know I won't.

I think I understand you, now: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/john_guandolo/

Like Hell we won't, Mr. Guandolo. Hide and watch.

A Review of Anderson Cooper's interview with the Brown family

A Review of Anderson Cooper's Interview with the Brown Family of TLC's "Sister Wives" and the FLDS children who were disposed of, like trash by their parents, who follow convicted sex offender Warran Steed Jeffs.

By Chana Bogsted

Just finished watching Anderson Cooper: here's my take on the show as someone who didn't grow up in polygamy and wasn't exposed to it except by what I've learned from reading about it and talking to all of you.

Kody et al are pretty good at presenting themselves. I think most people who aren't familiar with polygamy are going to take them as they present themselves: nice people who just happened to choose 'this lifestyle.' People who get along and work out their differences and all love each other. They dress like "normal" people, talk like "normal" people, so that's what they must be.

The kids from FLDS, however, were able to see the hidden side because they lived it. From years of hearing to "stay sweet,' they understand the emphasis on deceit, on pretending that things aren't what they are, in order to survive. One of the boys, Holden, I think, talked about how his parents would pretend to get along and talk about how happy they were to have other wives to take care of the kids - until the door closed and reality emerged.

I think most Americans are going to take the Browns and maybe the Dargers at face value, because most Americans are pretty naive and trusting. The Browns were very careful to distance themselves from Jeffs and the FLDS so that the public can distinguish between "good" polygamists and "bad" polygamists. If they can get most Americans to identify with them, they may be able to persuade the country that polygamy shouldn't be punished, but child abuse should.

Unless we can get people who have grown up in polygamous families that are more like the Browns' than Jeffs', then I think they have a fighting chance of winning the war of public opinion. Even Cooper, who is very critical of the fundamentalists who don't look and dress like us, the "bad" polygamists, sounded fairly sympathetic.

Sorry I can't give a different review of the show, but this is how I saw it.

Sister Wives of TLC Affiliated with a criminal Polygamist Group.

Reported by Rebecca Kimbel

Eureka Tribune Reporter

Kody Brown’s (star of Sister Wives TV reality Show,) Affiliated with a criminal Polygamist Group.

In an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, Kody Brown said his family was part of the Apostolic United Brethern.

The current leader of the AUB is LaMoine Jenson. LaMoine and the late leader Owen Allred involved in a 1.5 million dollar theft, (Hill vs. Allred). The verdict was awarded in Hill’s favor. Owen Allred told his congregation Virginia Hill had given the money as “tithing. The congregation is currently paying the money back. In between the theft and the congregation being stuck with the bill, the court documents show that Owen recorded the meeting where he decided not to return the stolen money. Like Warren Jeff’s, Allred was found guilty from the recordings he had made. Despite these facts, Owen convinced his congregation that it was all because they are persecuted for polygamy. Jeff Norman went to prison, but Jeff Norman had no power of decision at any time. Owen Allred and LaMoine Jenson were in power. Owen died. LaMoine now leads. In between the theft and the congregation being stuck with the bill, money was laundered into directions the congregation has no legal claim to. This too is in the court documents.

Criminal behavior isn’t new to the AUB. Three of their priesthood members were accused of child molest: Joseph Thompson in 1994, George Maycock in 1998, and Shevroll Palacios in 2002. Palacios went to prison. The AUB distanced them selves from Shevroll Palacios only AFTER he was under investigation. Thompson remained affiliated in the AUB with so much authority their own members didn’t realize he had been “released from his position” (on the AUB records only) and Maycock’s behavior was likewise ignored.

Kody Brown admits affiliation with the AUB, but refuses to name his employer. According to the “reality” show Kody had money of his own. Sources tell us he drove a Lexus. Yet he admits his plural wives have to work to help support themselves. Public information show Kody and first wife, Meri filed for bankruptcy 6-6 2005, plural wife Christine Brown in 2010 and new plural wife Robyn, in Mexico 6-15-2011. That’s three bankruptcies in one family in six years. Why is Kody having more children when he can’t support the ones he’s got? Is using laws to protect you from the bills you have created, the life style we want to legalize in America? How many children can a man produce without financial obligations that stick? Who knows, he isn’t through yet. Is Kody’s “belief” system and the group he is affiliated the life style we really want to promote in America?

Polygamy: A Matter of Consent

By Marion Munn
April 2011. Written for an Analysis of Argumentation Class at the University of Utah

Polygamy: A Matter of Consent

Over the past few years the media has been filled with high profile debates about same- sex relationships, such as the military’s “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, and the possible legalization of gay marriage. At the same time, another relationship controversy, that of polygamy, has been brought to both national and international attention in news reports featuring Warren Jeffs and his followers in The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or FLDS (Appleyard 48). This group is only one of several referring to themselves as Mormon Fundamentalists - all polygamist offshoots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon, or LDS) which abandoned the practice around the turn of the last century. Tenacious in its practice of polygamy, one of these groups has spilled over into Canada, precipitating a major debate there that will affect Moslem as well as Mormon Fundamentalist polygamists, as British Columbia’s Supreme Court decides on the constitutionality of its ban on polygamy (Wetzstein).

In the US, debates about polygamy take place in a society where grass-roots movements have promoted greater tolerance for alternative lifestyles, shifting away from biblical standards of morality towards a greater prominence for the bedrock American principle of individual freedom of choice. Because of this, some liberals who are pro same-sex marriage are now being drawn into support of polygamous unions. Society’s response to this issue is an important one, since its values are defined by what it condones, and some have identified problems inherent in polygamy, including “imbalances of power and psychological abuse” (Young 18). If this is so, responsible citizens would be well advised to withhold their support. As a 2006 Economist article states, “hardly anyone …is thinking about polygamy as social policy...” and that “for reasons that have nothing to do with gay marriage, polygamy is a profoundly hazardous policy” which includes implications of increased crime rates, male-female ratio imbalances affecting marriage prospects for men, and undemocratic processes (Rauch).

There are indeed multiple factors inherent in polygamy that should give cause for concern. One of these is the aspect of “consent.” Any factors limiting or compromising this vital facet of a relationship would certainly cast doubts upon its validity or desirability. Accordingly, this essay contends that polygamy, as typically lived in the United States, may violate accepted principles of informed consent. The term “consenting adults” has become familiar in the US, and implies freedom of choice, particularly in matters of sexual partners (Lawrence). To demonstrate the limitations of this term within polygamy, evidence will be presented including my personal insights as a past member of one polygamist community (the AUB or Apostolic United Brethren) for a period of approximately twenty years. It should be noted that the polygamy discussed here is more precisely termed “polygny,” i.e. one man with more than one wife, since this is the typical form (Valsiner 67-68). Additionally, the term “wife” or “husband” denotes a religious, not civil contract. Consent within these unions centers around two main factors: a woman’s agreement to becoming part of a polygamous union, and her consent for her husband to take more wives.

In considering a woman’s consent to entering polygamy, we will focus on adults, discounting the obvious abuses involving female children in sexual liaisons with adult males, which may not necessarily be typical. As Cassie Ambutter points out, “many of the women that opt for fundamentalism abandoned the mainstream LDS church in their later years, far beyond age of consent’s relevance” (14). This was true in my own case, and may appear to implicitly validate that choice in terms of free exercise of will, and to offer no grounds for challenge. However, there is an important qualifier to “consent” that has a bearing on decision making - even in the case of mature women not brought up or conditioned within societies where polygamy may be the norm, bringing into question even adult female compliance.

Definitions of informed consent include “Voluntary agreement by a competent person to another person's proposition” with ”competent” defined as “Able to act in the circumstances, including the ability to perform a job or occupation, or to reason or make decisions”(Nolo). In general it is conceded that an adult with no mental disabilities, not being physically coerced, usually has the potential of arriving at an informed decision. However a 2010 California Law Review article identifies another element relevant to this discussion, focusing on the word “imperfect.” It states that “imperfect consent… [is] where the ability of a person to consent to an act is questionable either because the act is arguably harmful to the person, or because social or cultural pressures compromise the person’s autonomy (Richards 200). Richards here identifies two important factors which he suggests may exist in polygamist culture– undue pressure, and compliance in spite of possible resultant harms to the individual - a view supported by others, writing on the subject of ethics (Arneson 42). It is important to identify these pressures and harms.

First, it should be recognized that within Mormon Fundamentalist culture polygamy is not optional. It is considered to be an essential commandment that must be followed to gain God’s approval and to enter the highest level of heaven (Walsh qtd. in Wetzstein par.6). Writings considered to be revelations directly from God to Joseph Smith (first leader of the LDS church) recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, clarify this. One passage states that “all those who have this law [polygamy] revealed unto them must obey the same" (132:3). Even more compelling is the penalty attached to its rejection, which is that if a woman is taught polygamy by her husband and refuses to live it “she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her....” (132:64). Early Mormon leaders hammered home these teachings to those who were unenthusiastic about polygamy, warning that such people would “go down to hell and be damned if they do not repent" (Pratt). Such threats may not carry much weight with today’s average member of the public, but Fundamentalists take a very literal reading of these passages; and emulate LDS leaders who, in the past, have defied the law and have been willing to risk imprisonment over the principle (Smith). In this context, however incredible it may seem, there are women who do agree to polygamy even though it may be repugnant to them and cause mental anguish (D’Onofrio 383). This was my own experience, and the experience of other women in my circle. For instance, a young woman whom I will call “Sarah “confided to me that she was angry with her parents for teaching her about “plural marriage” because that meant she “had to live it.” She also admitted that she was afraid of “being destroyed” if she “rejected the law [polygamy].” The result of this kind of experience is often emotional pain exacerbated by diminished time with the husband, and a reduction in resources that are spread increasingly thin (D’Onofrio 380). Some of the emotional effects have been noted by Dr. Lawrence Beall, Utah trauma psychologist, (Summary) and are also paralleled within Moslem communities, as will be shown later.

Not only do some women feel compelled to enter a polygamous relationship, once within such an arrangement their consent may be compromised in another important way. This is demonstrated in the ability of a man to take on new partners without the consent of existing wives. A man may solicit a woman’s agreement and sometimes obtain it under pressures already noted. However, if she does refuse, this may have no bearing on the outcome since the Doctrine and Covenants justifies her husband in taking new wives without her compliance (132:65). This renders a polygamist wife potentially powerless in this aspect of the relationship, once again with the potential for stress, unhappiness, and feelings of helplessness.

Some may argue that these pressures, limitations and harms are centered solely in Mormon Fundamentalist polygamy, and are atypical of other forms, but it should be noted that in Islam many women also view polygamy as a religious duty against which objections are “haram (not lawful)”(Polygamy). Alia Hogben, Executive Director of the Canadian Council of Muslim Women states that some women are sometimes fearful of repercussions, including “bodily harm” for shaming their husbands by non compliance (qtd. in Dhillon). They too are subject to radical changes within their marriages that do not require their consent. Dr. Susan Stickevers, expert witness in the Canadian polygamy hearings writes to me, “Too many Moslem women I have known had their husbands arrive home from trips to Pakistan, only to be informed that there was a new wife in the picture...” As a doctor in New York she was able to witness firsthand the negative mental and physical symptoms presenting in women subjected to such stresses, as was Professor Dena Hassouneh (736-737) a Moslem who studied the effects of polygamy on women.

It may be difficult to quantify the percentage of women who feel pressured into entering polygamy against their will, since repression of what is deemed to be negative emotion is expected (Beall par 9). Within the FLDS the dictum is to “keep sweet” (FLDS Beliefs) and for wives in the AUB, it is to be “in harmony.” Additionally, a woman’s “worthiness” is measured by her outward expressions of approval for the lifestyle, and women are “strongly dissuade[d} …from having or expressing alternative perspectives on plural marriage… creating the appearance of unanimous satisfaction with the polygamous lifestyle, regardless of any internal disagreements…” (D’Onofrio 391-392). Moslem women also face similar pressures not to shame their husbands by open dissent (Hogben qtd in Dhillon).

Although the pro polygamy lobby is attempting to appropriate the “consenting adults” argument in order to win support from liberal elements of society as a stepping stone to legalization, the consent problems discussed here are clearly not paralleled within gay relationships, where there are no external forces such as threats of “destruction” pressuring either party to be involved, no expectation of other individuals being introduced against the will of either partner, (with the accompanying potential for emotional distress, loss of time with a partner, or reduction of financial resources) and no pressure to give outward approval to an inwardly galling arrangement. A society that prides itself on the defense of the freedom of the individual to choose should also be intensely committed to ensuring that it does not condone practices and institutions that violate accepted norms of consent. Despite some outward protestations to the contrary, polygamy hurts many women, and for this reason liberals should not be seduced into confusing support for same sex marriage with support for a practice that embodies such inherent harms.

Works Cited

Ambutter, Cassie. "On Religious Subject Formation and the Limits of Liberalism: A Case Study of the Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints." All Academic Inc. (Abstract Management, Conference Management and Research Search Engine). Web. 07 Mar. 2011. <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p360251_index.html>.

Appleyard, Bryan. “Church of the Child Brides.” The Sunday Times Magazine. London. 22 Jun.2008. LexisNexis. 12 Apr. 2011

Arneson, Richard J. “Mill versus paternalism.” Ethics 90. Jul. 1980.

Beall, Larry. “The Impact of Modern-Day Polygamy on Women & Children. “ TATC: Trauma Awareness. Web. 27 Feb. 2011. <http://www.traumaawareness.org/id19.html>.

Dhillon, Sunny. “Polygamy Court Case will examine Muslims.” The Canadian Press, updated 5 Aug. 2010. Web 7 Apr. 2011. <http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/cp-article.aspx?cp- documentid=25346982>.

Doctrine and Covenants. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. <http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc?lang=eng>.

D’Onofrio, Eve. "Child Brides, Inegalitarianism, and the Fundamentalist Polygamous Family in the United States." International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. Oxford. Dec 2005. Vol. 19(3): 373- 394 doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebi028. Heinonline. Web. 06 Mar. 2011.

FLDS Beliefs 101. FLDS Beliefs 101 – “Keep Sweet.” Web 7 Apr. 2011. <http://flds101.blogspot.com/2008/05/flds-101-keep-sweet.html>.

Hassouneh-Phillips, Dena. "Polygamy and Wife Abuse: A Qualitative Study of Muslim Women in America." Health Care for Women International 22.8 (2001): 735- 748. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 7 Apr. 2011.

Lawrence v Texas. 539 U.S., 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003).

Nolo. Dictionary. Web 7 Apr. 2011.

Pratt, Orson. Journal Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church. Vol 17: 224- 225. Web. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/>.

Richards, Jacob. "Autonomy, Imperfect Consent, and Polygamist Sex Rights Claims." California Law Review 98.1 (2010): 197-242. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Mar. 2011."

Smith, Joseph F. Reed Smoot Hearings Volume 1 page 197. 56th Congress Hearings Document No. 486 . Proceedings before the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate, In the Matter of the Protests against the Rights of the Hon Reed Smoot, A senator from the Stat e of Utah, to hold his seat. Washington, Government Printing Office. 1906. Web 7 Apr 2011. <http://nboman.people.wm.edu/smoot.php>.

Stickevers, Susan. Email to the author. 18 Mar. 2010.

Valsiner, J. “Organization of children’s social development in polygamic families.” In J Valsiner (ed.), Child Development in cultural context. Toronto:Hogrefe and Huber. 1989. Print.

Wetzstein, Cheryl. “ Anti-polygamy law challenged in Canada court. “ The Washington Times 5 Jan. 2011:5. LexisNexis. Web 12 Apr 2011.

Young, Cathy. "Opening Marriage." Reason 35.10 (2004): 18-19. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 2 Mar. 2011.

Canadian case update

TODAY IN COURT



First witness: Dr. Steve Kent. Dr. Kent is a recognized expert in sociology of religion studies. He specializes in cult studies. He holds two M.A. degrees: one in History of Religions from American University, Washington, D.C. and one in Religion and Modern Western Society from McMaster University; and, his Ph.D. in Religion and Modern Western Society from McMaster, as well. He is the author of one book: From Slogans to Mantras: Social Protest and Religious Conversion in the Late Vietnam War Era: Syracuse: Syracuse University Press (2001). He has authored several articles, peer-reviewed papers and book chapters. His first paper on Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy: “A Matter of Principle: Fundamentalist Mormon Polygamy, Children, and Human Rights Debates,” was printed in Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 10 Issue 1 (2006): 7-29. (I was very pleased and honoured to have assisted Dr. Kent with research for this paper.



I studied under Dr. Kent in 1985 at the University of Alberta, course, New Religious Movements. Dr. Kent was the first person I phoned when I decided to start a campaign to stop the practice of polygamy in Canada. There was a pause on the phone and he said, “Wel-l-l, you can try.”



What a privilege to have Dr. Kent as one of our expert witnesses.



Dr. Brian Samuels led the interrogation of Dr. Kent. He reviewed his C.V. and then the body of his affidavit which is written in report format. Dr. Kent’s Research Methodology involved qualitative research meaning “researchers receive similar, mutually confirming information from multiple sources and different types of resources.”



Dr. Kent has come to the opinion “that polygamy has widespread negative effects upon the human rights of children, as well as on the health of [sic] welfare of many people who live in and around the communities that practice it.”



Brian Samuels went through the various topics of harm Dr. Kent has associated with polygamy in the analysis of his research:

· Incest and Inbreeding wherein he cited the work of Janet Bennion;

· Infant Deaths, Genetic Disorders, and Unmarked Children’s Graves;

· Arranged Marriages;

· Displaced Young Men—“The Lost Boys”—and Working Conditions for Youth;

· Welfare Fraud; Marriages, Sexuality, and the State;

· Polygamy as a Threat to the Democratic State;

· concluding with Polygamy and Coercion.



(Dr. Kent’s affidavit can be found at www.stoppolygamyincanada.wordpress.com , click on the stop polygamy in Canada expert witnesses button)



Robert Wickett, attorney for the FLDS, rose to cross-examine Dr. Kent. He picked away at Kent’s research methodology and the use of the word “polygamy” when it should be “polygyny.” He also picked away at Kent’s definitions of polygamous groups saying that Green and Kingston are one (meaning I think, one entity or one person) and Hildale, Ut/Colorado City, AZ is a community.



I don’t know where Mr. Wickett was coming from because Dr. Kent had already described the Kingston polygamy group as having several family groups around Utah and similar for Tom Green’s group of families. Then Robert Wickett attempted to discredit Kent’s research through newspaper articles as reliable sources. Dr. Kent came back with his usage of credible reporters in credible newspapers.



Mr. Wickett also referred to an article “Raising Lazarus” by Professor Lorne L. Dawson who criticized Kent’s research methodology. Dr. Kent replied that he has written a rejoinder to that critique.



Then Wickett attempted to trip Dr. Kent on his research re the amount of government money given to the Hildale/Colorado City complex through the late 90s. (p. 14 of Dr. Kent’s affidavit). Dr. Kent countered that the quote Wickett was using from the Salt Lake Tribune speaks of the community in 2009—a ten-year lapse from his research analysis re “bleeding the beast” accounts of fraud.



In my opinion, the most poignant quote from Dr. Steve Kent today was:

In a democracy you need educated people with life options that when something goes wrong they can trust someone to help them receive justice.”



Dr. Kent said this when he was summarizing his explanation of FLDS Officer Sam Roundy “who admitted not having forwarded up to two dozen child abuse reports to Child and Family Services.” (p. 22, Dr. Steve Kent’s affidavit)



Witness Alina Darger



Contrary to my previous reports that this previously anonymous witness is from Bountiful, Alina Darger grew up in an independent polygamy family in Salt Lake City with two mothers. There were 32 children. Her own mother had 15. She said her parents shared parenting. Her mother worked outside the home. They are not members of any church group, e.g. Apostolic United Brethren, FLDS or LDS. They had Sunday School in their own home reading from the Bible, Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures. They attended Sunday School at various churches and children’s programs at the LDS church.



At the beginning of Alina Darger’s testimony, Craig Cameron, attorney for the AG of Canada, rose to say he objected to her affidavit because it was not properly written. Chief Justice Bauman said the court must clarify the witness evidence.



When Robert Wickett, who led the examination of Alina Darger, asked if she believed in placement marriage, Craig Cameron rose to say that this subject is not in the witness’ affidavit. Chief Justice Bauman said the objection was well founded; but, Wickett said other witnesses have gone well beyond their affidavits to tell their stories. Chief Justice Bauman said he would accommodate the witness’ testimony.



Wickett asked Ms. Darger many questions about her lifestyle, etc.



Alina Darger went to public school and finished high school. Her family lived in a “regular” neighbourhood but had to keep their polygamy a secret; and, were afraid to report any abuses they suffered, e.g. one time someone spray painted “polygamous bitches” on their driveway—and act of vandalism—but her father simply paid to have it removed. Another time she was walking home with a friend who came from a monogamous family and a man in a car called them over, he had his pants down and he was masturbating. Her friend’s parents called the police, but her parents didn’t for fear of an investigation into their lifestyle.



Alina decided at a young age, 17 or 18, that she wanted a plural family. She is the first, legal wife of her husband. Her two sister wives are themselves sisters. In answering questions about how they selected the sister wives, Alina said they went through a process, e.g. will everyone have the same values; and, will this union be good for the family, etc. Alina has seven children, the oldest is 20. There are 24 children in the whole group. She said there are a lot of sacrifices to be made and much commitment to make polygamy work.



Alina runs a residential and industrial cleaning business with one of her sister wives. She has done work with Mary Bachelor and Anne Wilde. She does public speaking.



Alina says that her husband interacts with the children. On each one’s birthday, he takes that child out for a special day. In decision making for the children, the final decision is made between her husband and the biological mother of that child.



Alina supports decriminalization by saying it would help people come forward and get help if they need it. She said she has a son who is a football player but he is afraid to go further with a football career because of his family’s polygamy.



Leah Greathead, attorney for the AGBC, rose to cross-examine Ms. Darger. The first thing she pointed out is that there is a professional basketball star with the last name of Darger who comes from a polygamous family. Darger had to concede that is true.



Greathead also was not happy with the way Darger’s affidavit was written. She wanted to know which part was specifically written by Darger and who the other authors were. Darger said she wrote paragraph 25 and the other paragraphs were authored by her sister wives and her husband.



Greathead wanted to know about Darger’s public speaking. Darger said she speaks to university groups, police officers, and service groups to bridge the gap between the two cultures.



Darger does not believe in placement marriage and has encouraged her own children to make their own decisions about life and religion. She would not disown a child who decided to live monogamy. She has a daughter who is interested in different religions and who has studied the Qur’an.



If a sister wife decided to leave, Darger would want her and her children to be treated fairly and taken care of.



Craig Cameron on his cross-examination asked the best question of all: “Would you be allowed to take another husband, and stay in your present relationship?” Darger’s reply, “No. That would not be possible.”



So much for the hunky, dory, every-thing-is-rosy depiction of polygamy. It makes my skin crawl.



And, tomorrow we get Mary Bachelor, the co-founder of Principle Voices, proponent of polygamy, who has lived MONOGAMY for two decades!



Until Thursday,



Nancy Mereska, President

Stop Polygamy in Canada

A Rebuke

I am reprinting this excellent article with the kind permission of the author, John. R. Llewellyn, who is a former AUB member and practicing polygamist.


SISTER WIVES, A REBUKE
By John R. Llewellyn

“Sister Wives” is a TLC cable television series, purporting to be a
“reality show” starring the flamboyant Kody Brown and his four plural
wives. The Browns live in a large house divided by three apartments
in the city of Lehi, 30 miles south of Salt Lake City. The forth wife
has a residence of her own a few blocks away.

THE HISTORY BEHIND SISTER WIVES

The polygamous Brown family is what is known as Mormon
fundamentalists, a subculture of divisive Mormons who believe the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was out of order when it
discontinued the “sacred” practice of polygamy in 1890. According to
Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s successor, plural marriage was the most
sacred principle of Jesus Christ’s “gospel” and the Mormons were
commanded to live it and “raise up a righteous seed.” Joseph Smith is
the martyred prophet who founded Mormonism by authoring and publishing
the Book of Mormon which he claimed to have translated from gold
plates. The Church, founded in 1830, grew rapidly in a climate of
religious agitation, but was unpopular with mainstream, Protestant
Christianity. As a result the Mormons, as they were called, were
driven from Ohio, Missouri and Nauvoo, Illinois (but not without
cause). Joseph was assassinated in 1844. Brigham Young assumed
control of the Church and herded the (Latter-day) Saints to the Great
Basin (Utah Territory) arriving in 1847.


Joseph and his inner circle of acolytes, while denying that polygamy
was a Church doctrine, were secretly seducing the young attractive
women, including married women, with the notion that polygamy was
Jesus Christ’s preferred form of marriage. This breach of Christian
custom was justified by an alleged revelation Joseph Smith received
from Jesus Christ which is currently Section 132 of the LDS law book,
Doctrine & Covenants. The revelation is inherently coercive for it
threatens to damn all who reject plural marriage, and destroy
monogamous wives if they interfere with their husband’s quest for
plural wives. (See verses 6, 54, 64 and 65) In 1854, Brigham Young,
thinking he was safe from persecution shocked the world by revealing
that plural marriage was indeed Mormon dogma – and until 1890 all of
Mormonism revolved around plural marriage.


In the 1920s a fella name Lorin Woolley who is in essence the Father
of Mormon Fundamentalism, spun a story about John Taylor, the third
president and prophet of the LDS Church, alleging Taylor was visited
in 1886 by Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. The two supernaturals
predicted the 1890 Manifesto, and commanded Taylor to keep plural
marriage alive until the Second Coming of Jesus. Taylor subsequently
held an eight hour meeting in which he set apart a group of Mormons
commanding them not to let a year go by without a child being born in
the New and Everlasting Covenant – i.e. Mormon polygamy. Strangely
enough, by 1920 which was the first time the 1886 yarn was heard,
Lorin Woolley was the only surviving member of the eight hour meeting.


In other words, all we have is Lorin Woolley’s word – but that was
good enough for a handful of frustrated, pious Mormons with vibrant
Y-chromosomes.

This first Mormon fundamentalist group concocted another incredible
tall-tale giving them priesthood authority so they could organize.
But as groups often do, as they grew they split over the question of
authority, and these splits eventually split – and the splits split
and more tall-tales were told until there are dozens of groups all
claiming to be the one and only group having authority and living all
of God’s laws. Kody Brown and company belong to the second largest of
these groups, Apostolic United Brethren, with alcoves in Old Mexico,
Utah, Arizona, Wyoming and Montana.
REALITY OR ILLUSION

Sister Wives is supposed to be a reality show, but as is often the
case in Mormon fundamentalism what is purported to be reality is only
an illusion. The reality is that the run-of-the-mill polygamists are
not peacockish – they try to be as inconspicuous as possible, not
wanting to draw attention to themselves. Mormon plural marriage is a
sacred tenet, a principle you don’t flaunt. To do so is tantamount to
“casting pearls before swine.”

When Kody first announced that he and his wives were going to star in
a national televised realty show, we have it from reliable sources
that the leader of the group advised against it – which makes more
sense than the late claim they wanted to test the bigamy statute. The
history of Apostolic United Brethren, affectingly known as AUB, is
fraught with a history of key priesthood icons allegedly molesting
their children and key priesthood moguls involved in the theft of 1.5
million dollars. (See Hill vs Allred, Apostolic United Brethren, et.
al. AUB is currently paying off a 6 million dollar civil judgment)
Why take a chance of reopening that Pandora’s Box?

Mormon fundamentalists are stereotypical. Men with long hair are
frowned upon. Long hair generally symbolizes rebelliousness. If that
is the case with Kody, what is he rebelling against? Monogamy, the
law of the land, or the austerity of Mormon fundamentalism?

There have been other long-haired polygamists, Alex Joseph and Tom
Green for example, enticed by the intoxication of cameras, bright
lights and feigned loftiness, where narcissism shined through loud and
clear. Tom for example compared himself with some of Hollywood’s
notorious lovers. He was emboldened by the thought that he was
envied. Because media throughout the US, Europe and Japan sought him
out he thought he was a celebrity which gave him power. I am not
saying that Kody fits into this category, you decide. But Kody, his
wives and children obviously enjoy their singular, reality stardom.

Kody’s act is cleaner and more upbeat than Tom’s. Five of Tom’s
wives were adolescent girls when he took them as wives. Consequently
he was convicted not only of bigamy, but criminal non support and
child rape. What Kody and Tom have in common is long hair, a belief
in Mormon polygamy, and an apparent love of the lime light. I just
about forgot, when Tom was charged with bigamy he cut his hair so he
would look like just an ordinary nice guy.
WHAT MESSAGES DOES SITERWIVES SEND?

The Lehi Police built a bigamy case against Kody and have submitted
it to the Utah County Prosecutor. Kody has retained a lawyer who
according to newspaper accounts thinks it is unwise and unjust to
prosecute Kody for it would be singling him out among thousands of
Mormon polygamists. So far the prosecutor’s office hasn’t made a
decision. I suspect it’s going to be hard for the Utah County
Attorney to decline prosecution for lack of evidence. But then, he
may do what the Utah Attorney General has done, ignore the Utah
Constitution and bigamy statute.

The media is not going to let this issue slide between the cracks.
The Utah Constitution specifically forbids polygamy. The bigamy
statute has been upheld twice by the Utah Supreme Court in Utah vs.
Tom Green and Utah vs. Rodney Holmes. A couple of years ago a man
and two women attempted to get a Utah marriage license. It was a
backdoor attempt to overturn the bigamy statute but it too failed.
Some pundits fear that if one of these bigamy cases makes it to the
United States Supreme Court it will be overturned. Is that a valid
reason for not prosecuting?

Sister Wives did not address the abuse of women and children, or
neglect, welfare fraud, sense of entitlement, incest and dishonesty in
general that seems to be endemic to Mormon fundamentalism. It appears
TLC was only interested in sensationalism. The Brown family was
fodder used for ratings, nevertheless, willing and flamboyant fodder.
If the Utah County Attorney declines to prosecute what messages will
that send to the world?

The Utah County Attorney has vast discretionary powers. The
assumption is his decision will be based on legal polemics. But I can
just about guarantee that if he declines to prosecute there will be
moral interpretations. The Utah Attorney General has already
established that Utah is soft on polygamy. Polygamy is still a valid
LDS Church tenet, they just don’t think they should practice it now.
Utah County is bedrock Mormonism – the home of steadfast true
believers. It therefore stands to reason that Utah County Mormons
believe that Jesus Christ actually talked to Joseph Smith and Jesus
commanded all Mormon women to become plural wives. It is therefore a
safe prediction that if Kody is not prosecuted the world is apt to
deduce that it was due to religious influences.

The LDS Church is the most powerful and influential institution in
the State of Utah. The official position of the Church is to stay out
of politics and governmental matters except where morality such as
abortion and homosexuality is concerned, which brings to mind, is
polygamy a moral, religious or cultural issue?

The Church’s position concerning Mormon fundamentalist polygamy is
perplexing. All the leaders are willing to say is that the
polygamists do not belong to the Church. The Brethren are
conspicuously silent when it comes to the constitutional and moral
issues surrounding polygamy. I suspect that the Utah County Attorney
would appreciate a sign from South Temple Street, the location of
Church headquarters, a simple thumb up or thumb down would do.

Gone in 60 Seconds

All the empirical medical research done on polygamy, worldwide, shows that the practice shows elevated levels of molestation and incest, especially in female children.

Are people psychologically different because they live in a different section of the world? Hardly.

How long does it take, when you are associating with people who commit the felony crime of polygamy to locate an example of child abuse, molestation, poverty or neglect? I'd suggest you can't throw a rock in the local vicinity without hitting one.

In the full KSL interview with the Brown's from TLC's new show, Sister Wives, it seems to prove it takes less than 60 seconds anyway.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12603468&nid=148

At the 55 second mark, a woman is seen walking in the background. Her name is Heidi Mattingly Foster, and obviously she is an acquaintance of the Browns, there to assist with the taping.

Perhaps someone should ask the Browns how exactly they know Ms. Foster, whose children have been removed from her on more than one occasion by the state of Utah.

http://www.tribblogs.com/polygamyfile/2008/04/identity-theft/

Foster parents of her children say that the female children in their care ended every night by climbing into their beds, lying on their backs, clasping their hands in prayer and spreading their legs wide apart. When asked what they were doing the foster parents were informed that the girls were "waiting for the hand of G-d to come bless them between their legs."

So how long does it take to locate other crimes when the crime of polygamy is highlighted?

I'd like to thank the Browns for clearing this up for us.

The Eyes of Texas

There's an issue among those of us who oppose polygamy that needs to be addressed. Since the airing of the TLC show "Sister Wives", I have heard from more than one quarter that "I simply refuse to watch the garbage".

I understand. It was hard for me to tune in as well. I had to DVR it, so I could step away and have my fits of indignation. I understand those, and the need for them.

I have watched all 7 episodes of the show, exactly once, and I already have a list of issues, either lies the Browns have told, or obvious problems with their assertions that none of this polygamous behavior is coercive.


If any of you think that the opposition, the Plural Voices group, or the Safety Net Committee, or the governments of Utah and Arizona are skipping the show, or skipping looking at us, their opposition, you are wrong.

The AAAP has an online discussion group where we post empirical medical research done on the affects of polygamy on women and children. And guess who came to the party this week wanting to take a gander at our research? The email address ends in utah.gov.

I know it is hard to look at this stuff, whether because of basic human principle or because all our sensibilities are so offended when we look at it, but that's what we're here for, isn't it?

Believe me, more than once when someone has expressed interest in "what I do", they have told me, "Wow, this stuff is really a bummer, isn't it?"

Yes, it's a bummer. That's why everyone isn't an anti-polygamy activist. It takes someone strong to continue looking right back at evil behavior and to stand your ground and say, "I'm watching YOU!"

I have yet to go back and re-watch the 7 "Sister Wives" episodes. Maybe I'll need a stiff drink or something to get through it. But my point is that in just one viewing I spotted many lies and inconsistencies. I need more eyes willing to watch and ask questions.

Utah is obviously gearing up for a full court press to decriminalize this human blight. They aren't asking for access to the research we've compiled because they don't think it is a threat. They are there to find holes.

Don't you think, as activists, we should be looking back?

Well? Don't you?

Muslim Polygamy in America

Watching this, or interviews with the Browns of TLC's Sister Wives, one comes away with the same explanation from the ladies of the doctrine of submission. 'It is my god's will so I will live in submission to it, even though I admit it hurts me and creates pain in my life that even I can't explain or understand.'

And both seem to have the same answer, too. "My suffering will be rewarded by my god, and it is not for me to question my god's prophet for making me suffer, so I must submit and learn to keep sweet, it is making me a better person."

So I guess life will be better when they're dead?

That's some high goals, girls.

And while they fit very nicely into Sharia law, they have no place in a free country for women. You do not have the right to raise little American girls to submit to the felony crime of polygamy, in exchange for their spiritual salvation.


Those aren't constitutional goals, so good luck with that at the SCOTUS.

Abuse isn't a recognized religion.

Liberty or Death

There she is, the symbol carried into the battle of San Jacinto, sent to us with courage, love and prayers, many prayers, from the women of Kentucky and Ohio.

Look at what the mothers of Texas freedom sent to us. They called her the goddess of liberty. This was period high art, rich with symbolism, crafted to hold meaning for us all, as free Texas women.

Is she sitting down, or is she standing up? One can see her as preparing to do either, really. She could be in the process of sitting down to peacefully enjoy her victory or she could be in the process of standing up, to defend her liberty.


And as Judge Andrew Napolitano was recently quoted as saying, "It's liberty or death! It is not liberty or safety!" If the government gives you safety but not liberty it is a tyrant.

Interesting that the Safety Net Committee, which is funded with Utah resident's tax dollars has never assisted one single woman or child to leave polygamy.

Their funds, resources, assets and energy all seem to have gone into a concerted effort to find a family and contribute to its commission and advertising of a felony.

All this, while I have met and seen women who have fled exactly this group of polygamists.

Congratulations, now you are all out with your intentions. Now let me explain ours.

Texas will remain a free state for women, where anyone who carries the designation of "wife" is equal to her male husband in the eyes of the LAW.

Equal. Not 1/3 or 1/5 or 1/19th of an invested party in the legal union, but 1/2.

If I am a married woman, in the state of Texas, I am an equal.

Don't tell us that there aren't women who are desperate to get out of the AUB, of which the Brown family are members. Don't try to tell me that your "Safety Net" is there to help THEM. We know better.


So here is my intention for the state of Texas.


Texas is a free state for women, not a concubine state.

We have a legal system and a non corrupt law enforcement team, which has proven it will use the law to PROTECT women and children.

So to any woman in the American west, or in any American city hiding under a hijab too, if you can read these words, and you want out, contact us. We will help you escape polygamy and get you to the only place you seem to have a prayer, Texas.

We will get you and your children here to Texas and we will arrange hiding for you for at least six months, until you and your children are qualified for Texas citizenship. We will get you protected.

Yes, take a good look at her, she is no concubine.

She has never traded her liberty for her safety.

The Browns

At this link you can find a very long interview with the Brown family.

They mentioned a "Risk Assessment" study, performed by activists associated with Utah's state funded program called the Safety Net Committee. This was in preparation for a SCOUTUS challenge to the federal polygamy laws. The Utah Attorney General was a participant in helping to prepare this family for a public challenge to the law.

This assessment was performed, to vet the most "normal" family possible for this television program.

You will notice that they described the TLC camera's presence in their lives as scheduled and arranged. You will also notice that if the children in the family seem disturbed, depressed, emotional or withdrawn, footage of such an episode in a child's life is deliberately excluded.

So, in REALITY, the viewer is never going to see the truth of the results and effects of POLYGAMY.

What exactly is reality about that?

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=12603468&nid=148

And it also seems that the leading law enforcement official in the state of Utah has conspired to assist this group to commit the crime of Bigamy.

Gee, again I smell a RICCO that the feds will just ignore....I can hear the snoring sounds from their direction right now.

"This is the only law we break."

Oh boy! Can I pick one, just one felony I can do, too?

Liars! Who Knew?

For anyone who thinks that the Brown "family" was shocked by the launch of a bigamy investigation, as you can see here, they have yanked your chain. One year ago, Christine Brown revealed her political agenda and it did indeed include putting her "family" at risk for prosecution.

Way to go main stream media. Let's not even bother with some simple due diligence. I notice that even Ben Winslow failed to point this out, and it was his story.


9/28/2010 8:52 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

http://www.tmz.com/2010/09/28/sister-wives-polygamous-reality-show-lehi-tlc-utah-statement-mormon-kody-brown-family/
...
"TMZ just received a statement from the Brown family -- saying, "We are disappointed in the announcement of an investigation, but when we decided to do this show, we knew there would be risks."

ONE YEAR AGO:

Ben Winslow FOX 13 News Reporter 9:39 PM MDT, September 27, 2009
http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-polygamists-seek-decriminalization,0,919279.story

"Because of that, we're stuck," said Brown.

"So you want to be charged, in a way?" she was asked by Fox 13's Ben Winslow.

"Bring it on," Brown replied. "Kind of. We need a test case. We need it decriminalized. People need to see that there are families out there that would be a good representation of the plural communities and we just live our lives like everybody else and that's the only law we break."