MORMON POLYGAMY, A QUASI-RELIGIOUS FACADE

MORMON POLYGAMY, A QUASI-RELIGIOUS FACADE

            The following is a reply to a writer who has been hired to do a book concerning the different perspectives on the raid of the YFZ “polygamist” Ranch in Texas.  My answers were:

            Texas has sent a message that polygamy, Mormon, Christian or Muslim is not welcome.  The FLDS has also sent a message, which is, we are growing and spreading from State to State.

            Polygamy is no longer a Utah and Arizona problem.  It is no longer a regional problem but a National problem.  The raid on the YFZ Ranch has attracted more, and more attention to the phenomenon of Mormon polygamy. In 2002, during the trial and conviction of Tom Green, Mormon polygamy was a novelty, now it’s either a nuisance or a new promotional cause for liberals, libertarians and sympathetic Mormons.    

            Not only is polygamy spreading but where ever it goes it attracts opposition.  In Texas a very well organized group calling themselves Americans Against Abuses of Polygamy. (www.tripleap.org) is doing a fine job of educating government and society of the pernicious side of polygamy. In a sense AAAP has taken over where Tapestry Against Polygamy left off and is learning from Tapestry’s mistakes.  But then of course, they don’t have the internal Utah, social and political opposition from government that Tapestry experienced.  AAAP has put together a united network that is harmonious with anti-polygamist thinking in many states and Canada.

            Although I think Texas CPS and law enforcement attempted to do their homework before acting on the raid, I think they could have been better prepared for the expected polygamist defense.  In 1953, when Arizona raided Short Creek, now Colorado City, public opinion turned against law enforcement because of the way it was handled - tearing children from the arms of their mothers.  It should have been expected that the FLDS would once again attempt to portray themselves as victims of religious discrimination. The raid should have been conducted accordingly - not giving them any more opportunity than necessary to cry discrimination. Otherwise I applaud Texas for not pussyfooting around like Utah and Arizona.  (So much for hindsight)

            Canada is also taking a stand where opposition is organizing to oppose a political movement to decriminalize the practice of polygamy.

            What it all boiling down too is a debate over whether Mormon polygamy is really a religious practice that should be protected by the First Amendment, or if it should also come under the umbrella of Lawrence vs. Texas, (a pervert’s right of privacy). 

            It is my opinion that just passing laws against polygamy is not enough to discourage the practice.  The practice of Mormon polygamy must be dissected and exposed intellectually and rationally.  This is what the organized anti-polygamy groups are now attempting to do.  Having lived the lifestyle, rejected it, studied it and exposed the pernicious side by way of books, essays and civil law suits, I have been asked several times to contribute my opinions. 

            In a nut shell, organized Mormon polygamy has evolved into quasi-religious cabals, the driving force being “conflict, ego, power, sex and wealth.”  Conflict, ego, power and sex are the means - the end being wealth.  Section 132 is an irrational belief that is taken on faith alone.  What makes it viable is not that Jesus Christ allegedly communicated with Joseph Smith, but because it appeals to the male ego and his Y-chromosome.  The religious argument is an illusion.  The rational fact is that Section 132 provides the backdrop for merchandising plural wives.  It has been proven to be a multimillion dollar business (Hill vs. Allred, AUB, LaMoine Jenson, et.al.).

            How does conflict work in the equation?  Mormon polygamists need devils more than they need gods.  They portray themselves as perpetual victims – righteous underdogs.  At the same time they want the “religious freedom” to brainwash and oppress females so they can cultivate harems and merchandise the culls to men with excited Y-chromosomes.

            The religious aspect (Section 132) is a facade providing the surreptitious justification of establishing dominance over women and pursuing sex with many wives – which is a tremendous ego builder.  In essence, what the “Jesus Christ of Section 132 is saying, is: “the male libido will pay big bucks for the ‘priesthood’ privilege of having sex with many women.  

           

           

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
Page: 1 of 1
  • 9 Mar 2010, 4:01 PM Carmine wrote:
    A bit of a stretch don't you think John?
    Hill vs AUB is now about "merchandising plural wives"?

    I struggle to imagine the amount of time and energy you expend thinking of new ways to twist any and all problems to be the fault of polygamy.

    I wonder what you would do with all the time and energy you would have if you let go of all the animosity and pain that you hold on to.

    I wonder what kind of amazing things you could create in this life if your energy and talents were directed towards creating peace and harmony and understanding.
    Reply to this
  • 10 Mar 2010, 1:54 PM Mahonri wrote:
    Carmine,

    Bad behavior does not change unless someone recognizes it and takes the time and energy to expose the bad behavior. Until bad behavior is exposed, no collective good can replace it.

    If I understand Mr. Llewellyn's position correctly, it is the corruption in the AUB (and other organized polygamist groups) that he takes issue with.

    The corruption can be misuse of member's tithing money for the benefit of the leaders, the de facto assigning of plural wives to reward "valiant" brethren, unrighteous dominion over members lives etc.

    The human condition is such that many men will always seek out multiple sex partners. The argument Mr. Llewellyn makes is that justifying what is natural by having "one holding the proper keys" and sanctifying such relationships, only on condition the men pay homage to him and his authority, is not only wrong but inevitably leads to unrighteous dominion and abuse of power.

    Corruption is corruption in the AUB whether it is the "merchandising of wives", the "misuse of fiduciary authority" or theft as all are based on the belief the Brethren are Christ's true and only authoritative people on earth.

    It is not a stretch to connect all the dots when exposing corruption.

    You seem quite strident in your comments and lecture Mr. Llewellyn for wasting his time and energy in taking on the corruption in the AUB. "Me thinks you protesteth too much" and waste your time and energy in chastising him.

    Clearly you have not conquered your own Mormon Fundalmentalist demons.

    Mahonri

    Reply to this
  • 16 Mar 2010, 8:00 PM Carmine wrote:
    I agree with your description of "corruption" and have never pretended to defend AUB or any other organization in their corrupt practices.
    In fact I have yet to see an organization that is not riddled with some form of corruption as you describe.
    My question is "Why AUB?"
    To me it is pretty obvious. Just follow the money and you will find the motive. John obviously stands to profit considerably for all the "hard work" he has done for Mrs. Hill. He has been able to up the anti by saturating the internet with his "expert opinion" which I am sure will not go unrewarded.
    We already have the Supreme Court overturning other courts to punish a group of dirty polygamists. Hard to beleive in UT I know.
    Somehow now in his opinion, AUB is responsible for any and all bad stories that come out of polygamy.
    I suspect that after AUB antes up and John and his team of "trusted" associates take their victory trip to Disneyland we wont be hearing much more about AUB. They will have been punished, John will get paid and life will go on.
    Will anything change? Will people stop CHOOSING to live polygamy?
    No, because we can never take away peoples power to CHOOSE. If we try to that is true coercion.
    My "chastising" him is mostly sarcasm intended to invite people to consider that the opinions here are just that "opinions" (mine included).
    Reply to this

Page: 1 of 1
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.