Fearing the different
My husband paid his first visit to Colorado City, home of the FLDS, on Saturday.
It was a shock.
Yes, he's heard me talk about the community and the icy silent treatment residents give most outsiders. But there is nothing like experiencing it yourself.
While I met with the Centennial Park Action Committee to talk about media coverage of polygamy, he went for a trail ride on his motorcycle.
Then he stopped in at the local gas station in Colorado City. He didn't know any better, since I hadn't pointed out the Border Store on the highway.
As he filled his truck with gas, none of the people who'd stopped to fill their vehicles would meet his glance. Inside the store, he held a door open for two young women. They didn't look at him or offer a word of thanks.
He was hungry, so he checked the shelves for a snack. At the counter, he tried to make small talk with an older woman working the cash register.
Silence.
"The feeling I got is I don't exist," he told me later. "I am not a human. I'd rather they call me names. At least they'd be acknowledging I am alive."
He couldn't get over it. "That is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. It's like the Twilight Zone. I can't believe people will be like that. Poor souls."
You get used to it, I told him. But I remain perplexed. I can't understand the FLDS view of strangers that leads them to abandon basic kindness and civility for such un-Christ like behavior.
His experience was ironic, too. During my meeting in Centennial Park, the women told me that during the past year, as polygamy moved to the media forefront, they have been snubbed more than once while visiting stores and restaurants in St. George.
One woman said a restaurant refused to serve her group. Another told of sitting in a classroom and hearing two women behind her whispering.
Fear of "otherness" often brings out the worst in us, I guess.
It was a shock.
Yes, he's heard me talk about the community and the icy silent treatment residents give most outsiders. But there is nothing like experiencing it yourself.
While I met with the Centennial Park Action Committee to talk about media coverage of polygamy, he went for a trail ride on his motorcycle.
Then he stopped in at the local gas station in Colorado City. He didn't know any better, since I hadn't pointed out the Border Store on the highway.
As he filled his truck with gas, none of the people who'd stopped to fill their vehicles would meet his glance. Inside the store, he held a door open for two young women. They didn't look at him or offer a word of thanks.
He was hungry, so he checked the shelves for a snack. At the counter, he tried to make small talk with an older woman working the cash register.
Silence.
"The feeling I got is I don't exist," he told me later. "I am not a human. I'd rather they call me names. At least they'd be acknowledging I am alive."
He couldn't get over it. "That is the weirdest thing I've ever seen. It's like the Twilight Zone. I can't believe people will be like that. Poor souls."
You get used to it, I told him. But I remain perplexed. I can't understand the FLDS view of strangers that leads them to abandon basic kindness and civility for such un-Christ like behavior.
His experience was ironic, too. During my meeting in Centennial Park, the women told me that during the past year, as polygamy moved to the media forefront, they have been snubbed more than once while visiting stores and restaurants in St. George.
One woman said a restaurant refused to serve her group. Another told of sitting in a classroom and hearing two women behind her whispering.
Fear of "otherness" often brings out the worst in us, I guess.
10 Comments:
Just a thought- I know myself, the last ten years that I have lived around the area (Hildale/CC/CP), I found it strange also to be treated as if I was not there. With the surrounding communities of Southern Utah getting increasingly hostile towards those that "Look" like "plygs", I find that my normally outgoing manner is getting harder to show to people that are hostile back. The funny thing is, the people of Hildale/CC are more friendly to me now than the surrounding communities. I have very few of the towns people ignore my smile & "Hello" these days.
bee good,
Perhaps the people of Hildale are now familiar with you and no longer consider you a threat. I think the perceived unkindness is really done out of self-preservation.
I'm sure there is alot of tension in that area of the state.
I feel sorry for your husband's (Brooke), or anyone's, experience with such treatment. One can experience a multitude of feelings, depending upon how one interprets such treatment. The question is: what is the real reason for the treatment.
No one knew you husband, so it wasn't him personally. There are a multitude of possible reasons, from bad personal experiences from outsiders to being instructed to not speak with outsiders from local leaders. Sometimes, by not replying to small talk, they don't get asked deeper questions which they aren't supposed to talk about. They know who are locals, and who are "visitors".
When I drove through CC/Hildale a couple of years back, I didn't see anything unusual other than there weren't very many people out of their houses. And, the ones who were just ignored us driving through in our passenger van. Contrariwise, when we drove through Centennial Park, someone followed us into the neighborhood and drove right behind us the whole way while we drove up and down some of the streets until we left and got back on the highway. Part of the local volunteer security I guess. Heard that CC/Hildale also had such security under Sam Barlow, but perhaps they disbanded it because I didn't see anyone following us while there.
Yes, it does seem un-Christlike, doesn't it? Yet, perhaps they see themselves in a kind of war with society, which society declared against them (going after their leader, taking over their "united effort", threatening to take away their homes, outside rules and new state police in their midst, etc.). In times of war, lots of things happen when potential enemies come "snooping" around. So, did they know who he was? Not likely. They were probably being extra careful. Yet, from an outsiders point of view, it didn't seem very hospitable.
When it was found out that I was a Mormon Fundamentalist, I and my wives were ostracized as well - from the local Ward members. Many diverted their eyes when they saw us coming, went other ways, tried not be be engaged by us through eye contact or conversation. Over time, it has gotten better because some saw what they were doing, and how it might have appeared. Ironically, those who were the worst offenders were those who were supposedly the most righteous - former Bishops and Stake Presidency members and their wives. Guess they figured they might lose or have problems answering the temple recommend questions if they talked ("associated") with us. Because we only go a couple of times a year now, when our kids have programs or talks they are giving, they seem to figure they can say "hi" now and actually say a few words.
When were are in known Mormon Fundamentalist areas while visiting, I usually get the "look" or the look away, and less than civil reception, from the local people. And, it is apparent that it comes from Mormon and non-Mormon alike. Everyone (Mormon Fundamentalists) seems to get lumped in together with what people read in the newspapers and hear on the news reports, untrue it may be, or unrepresentative of most Mormon Fundamentalists it may be.
As Rodney King said: "Can't we all just get along"? > ; )
Take care!
James
I read an article written by Brooke Adams recently and wanted to make a few comments on it, but saw that it wasn't posted in this blogger section. Therefore, I chose this related commentary in order to post the article/my comments.
Please see below:
> Article Last Updated: 6/24/2006 12:08 AM
>
>
> Elusive witnesses weaken sex cases
> In FLDS towns: Prosecutors struggle to find victims who would
> testify about their 'marriages' to older men
> Legal hurdle: Prosecutors struggle to find willing witnesses in
> border towns dominated by the sect
>
> See PROSECUTORS, A5
>
> Prosecutors look for w
>
> By Brooke Adams
> The Salt Lake Tribune
> Salt Lake Tribune
>
> A lack of witnesses may scuttle cases against eight residents of a
> polygamous community who are charged with sex offenses involving
> marriages to underage girls.
James: Interesting. Didn't it use to be that when someone felt victimized, they came forward, and that is the reason WHY a crime was prosecuted? However, if there were no "victims", then a crime hadn't been committed? In the last decade or two, they're redefined who a "victim" is, and it isn't people like you and me. It is the STATE. People are doing things the state/society supposedly doesn't like, and they prosecute. The victims may not have a problem with it at all, or, certainly don't think that the punishment fits the supposed crime.
Why aren't the "underage girls" coming forward? Maybe because they consented, and are happy with it? They agreed to it? It is part of their religion?
Linda Green and Tom Green's other wives didn't go to the state and file a complaint, saying Tom coerced them, or felt that didn't have a choice in the matter, or "raped" them. They were happy with the arrangement. Yet, the state declared them "victims", and prosecuted. Who for? Certainly not the Green wives, who continue to be victims to this date. Declared to be by the state, but MADE IN REALITY victims by the state themselves. The State stays that Tom Green "raped" each of them, yet, in reality, it is the state who is RAPING THEM TO THIS DAY, DAY IN AND DAY OUT. In addition, the STATE raped and is raping the tax payers even today by paying for the conviction, incarceration, and paying the rent/expenses of Tom's wives/families. How much? If one includes all of the investigative and legal time, from the State, County, police and sheriff's, AG's office, etc. the initial prosecution to incarceration expenses were well over a million dollars. Sure, they said it was much less, but they hid/didn't account for all kinds of expenses. Since incarceration, they are spending over $40,000 a year average to house time in their fine facilities, and approximately $4,000 per month just in rent to house his wives. Much more than what welfare they were collecting before his incarceration.
So, should everyone care that eight more families may be put in the same situation that Tom Green has, with the State prosecuting, then incarcerating, and then paying for the families upkeep while they sit in prison? Who benefits? The only one's I know are the politicians/prosecutors/Travesty types who are pursuing this who gain politically, or career wise, or get more donations because of the pursuit. I know of no one else who does.
If no one comes forward, claiming to have been coerced in to marriage or sex, then should these cases be pursued?
> The first trial - of Kelly Fischer, 39 - is set to begin July 5
> in Mohave County Superior Court in Kingman, Ariz., with one for Dale
> Evans Barlow, 48, to follow on July 11. But County Attorney Matt
> Smith said Friday the cases may have to be postponed or even
> dismissed.
> The issue, Smith said, is "whether or not we have any witnesses
> available.
James: Who needs witnesses? They must have something on each or else they wouldn't have charged each of them with a crime, and got a grand jury to allow them to be charged. That is all Kangaroo courts need to convict. They'll ignore all or most of the procedural issues, disallow defenses, then allow a jury of the accused's enemies to convict.
Should be pretty much open and shut cases.
> "So far, we haven't been able to serve the victims in either
> case," he told The Salt Lake Tribune. "We've not had any luck
> serving people. They are running, they are hiding, they are changing
> houses, they are not answering the door."
James: Breaks my heart. Do you think the "victims" are telling them something? Do you think that perhaps they should be listening?
> Smith said Mohave County sheriff's deputies were able to serve
> only one of four subpoenas on potential witnesses during a search of
> homes in Colorado City, Ariz., on May 25.
> "A lot of shenanigans [are] going on," Smith said.
James: This country's founding fathers treated the Engish prosecutors the same way. Only they were called "patriots" by us. Wonder if the FLDS consider these "runners" to be patriots as well. Religious freedom fighters?
> Colorado City, along with Hildale, Utah, is home to the
> Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose
> followers practice plural marriage as a tenet of faith and believe
> it necessary to earn heavenly exaltation. The FLDS and other
> fundamentalist Mormons have their roots in the mainstream Church of
> Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which abandoned polygamy in 1890
> and now excommunicates those who embrace it.
> The other men charged are: Rodney H. Holm, 39; Donald R. Barlow,
> 49; Vergel Bryce Jessop, 46; Terry D. Barlow, 24; Randolph J.
> Barlow, 33; and David R. Bateman, 49.
> The men were indicted by a Mohave County grand jury last July
> based on testimony provided by ex-FLDS member Richard Holm, Mohave
> County investigator Gary Engels and Candi Shapley, who at age 16
> was "spiritually" married to defendant Randolph J. Barlow.
James: Two witnesses. What more do they need? Oh, perhaps witnesses for all of the others men charged?
Well, then perhaps they'll have to settle on just one man - Candi's spiritual husband.
> The men, who have entered not guilty pleas, face two charges:
> one count of sexual conduct with a minor and one count of conspiracy
> to commit sexual conduct with a minor.
> In Arizona, polygamy is prohibited in the state constitution,
> but is not a crime; it is, however, a class 6 felony to engage in
> sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 unless that person
> is a legal spouse. Such felonies carry a sentence of four months to
> two years in prison or probation.
James: So, are all of the High School sexcapades, if discovered by the police, "enforced"? Are all of those people/"little children) charged with class six felonies? Anyone else who has sex with an under 18 year old? Are all of the pregnancies of those "little girls" under 18, aborted or not, investigated as to who the father is, and then are they charged and tried in court?
Or, is this just selectively enforced against those of another culture? Against plygs, and no one else?
> The grand jury indicted FLDS leader Warren S. Jeffs on the same
> two charges for his role in performing at least one of the
> marriages. Jeffs also faces a rape-as-an-accomplice charge in Utah
> for conducting an underage marriage.
James: Yet, 16 and 17 year old marriages of "little girls" are performed all the time in Arizona, and the husbands and magistrates performing them are not charged with crimes. Why? Because the legal age for monogamists is 14-16, and not 18.
I guess that those who believe in monogamy are "old enough" to get married at 14-16 in Arizona, but not polygynists. They must be 18, and then, they can still be prosecuted anyway, but only for bigamy. Difference? Monogs can marry at 14-16, but plygs must wait until 18.
"Please oh please Massa, won't ya please let me get married? I promise I'll be a good plyg...".
"I have a dream..."
He is a fugitive and has been
> on the FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list since May 6.
> Smith has said the cases are about stopping so-
> called "spiritual" marriages between underage girls and older men,
> not polygamy.
James: Does Arizona have laws against age difference marriages? I thought only Utah created one recently - a wonderful "designer" law, like jean, that only seems to "fit" one class of people.
I wonder what Celine Dion and her husband would think of it. Oh, that's right, they're Canadians.
> Fischer, who works in construction, was 34 when he allegedly took
> a 16-year-old girl as a plural wife between October 2000 and March
> 2001, a time frame constructed using birth certificates of the woman
> and her first child.
James: So, how many Arizona monogamist men are incarcerated for sleeping with 16/17 year olds again, or at least those who get the "girls" pregnant? Or, just prosecuted? All that are brought to their attention? All that get abortions, with those records subpoened? All that bear the children, with the records of those live/dead births being used as evidence against them?
Again, are they actively pursing those "crimes", or just those of plygs?
Of course, crimes of blacks aren't unequally prosecuted are they?
> But beyond that paper trail, Arizona authorities have no victim
> and apparently little other evidence. Deputies who searched homes of
> Donald R. Barlow, Vergel B. Jessop, David R. Bateman and Dale E.
> Barlow in May seized such items as letters, telephone bills,
> photographs and genealogy charts. They also attempted to collect
> saliva samples from men, women and children to be used in proving
> paternity.
James: Gee, the lengths they'll go to. Again, do they go to these lengths to prevent all of the pregnancies of the monogs out in society - at large? What are the statistics in America? 2 in 10 of them get pregnant before graduating, thus making them less than 18? With a large percentage of them occurring by someone over 18? Gee, just think of the number of new jails that would be needed if they were all pursued and prosecuted in order to FAIRLY prosecute this law.
> "The alternative is that if the court allows us to get birth and
> marriage records in without the victim present," Smith said. "We may
> try and do that on a case . . . and see if we can win a case like
> that or at least give them a run for their money without any
> witnesses."
James: Yes, it is a case of the accused having to foot their own bills. With the State (er, the taxpayers) paying the prosecutions bills, incarceration expenses, child care, etc. thereafter.
> Smith said he has "somewhat willing victims" in two cases -
> Shapley and Ruth Stubbs, who has previously testified about her
> spiritual marriage at age 16 to Rodney H. Holm - and expects those
> trials to proceed later this summer.
> Stubbs' testimony came in 2003, when Utah successfully prosecuted
> Holm for unlawful sex with a minor and bigamy.
James: Guess multiple states could prosecute for the same crime. Gee, I guess that means that plygs shouldn't go on vacation out of state, either. If they did, that might be a sign that they were "uppity". But, the states could "learn 'em". "Cookouts" could be had in each jurisdiction they go to.
> Court dates in the other cases have been set and then rescheduled
> numerous times as prosecutors gathered evidence and Bruce S.
> Griffen, the men's defense attorney, finished a lengthy murder
> trial.
> Griffen states in court filings that the men were "summoned" to
> participate in plural marriages at the request of Jeffs and that the
> women exercised "free choice" in agreeing to the arrangements.
James: Wouldn't matter if it was true. The women are "slaves of the state". Even their own parents don't have jurisdiction in this case.
> The women ranged in age from 15 to 17 at the time of their
> spiritual marriages, which took place between December 1998 and
> March 2002, the charges allege.
> In court documents, Griffen has argued the state cannot
> criminally punish the men for religiously based marital decisions,
> particularly in instances where the girl and her parents gave
> consent.
> "Regulation of a person's liberty - especially in matters of
> family, sexuality and procreation - based upon principles of
> morality no longer justifies criminal penalty, even under the most
> relaxed level of constitutional scrutiny," Griffen argues in
> filings.
> Shapley, however, has testified that she went along with the
> sealing ceremony only because she "thought it was the right thing to
> do because of how I was raised."
James: Yes, as do "little children" who agree to get baptized, accept the priesthood, magnify their callings in the priesthood by actually performing the duties of their calling, go on missions, etc. Most parents even "coerce" their children to go to school, and even go to bed. So, should the parents be prosecuted for arranging and performing these acts of supposed (new definition) coercion?
She also said she was forced, over
> her objections, to engage in sexual activity with Randolph Barlow.
James: Well, spousal rape is another matter. Yet, is her spiritual husband being charged with spousal rape? I don't remember reading it above. If not, then what is wrong with this picture? Prosecuting things that shouldn't be prosecuted, and not prosecuting things that should.
> Smith maintains that "religious belief or motivation" claims are
> not a defense to the charges and that religion is being used merely
> as a "shield" for a practice that is really about sexual
> gratification.
> brooke@...
>
James: And, it appears that prosecutor Smith has just exposed his own heart.
Mark Twain called it something else: "A Christian act of charity" in many cases.
Take care!
James
James,
A poor black man commits murder and is convicted. A rich white man commits murder and gets off. The fact that the white man got off does not justify what the black man did.
Every single one of your posts tries to justify one wrong with another wrong. You will never convince anyone with that method.
So the plygs are being singled out. So what!! If they didn't break the law there would be nothing to single them out for. STOP BREAKING THE LAW!! Its as simple as that.
Responses below:
>Bishop Rick said...
>James,
>A poor black man commits murder and is convicted. A rich white man commits murder and gets off. The fact that the white man got off does not justify what the black man did.
James: Of course not. Yet, the fingers are still being pointed at the plygs. For doing things similar to what everyone else in society is doing. With this finger pointing supposedly justifying why there are LAWS against things that plygs do that monogs don't.
Christ said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
Others say: "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks".
We simply say: there are a few laws that shouldn't be on the books. There are others that are being unevenly, selectively enforced against plygs and NOT against the rest of society. Mormons included. Lots of finger pointing by monogs, while plygs haven't returned the "favor".
We are simply calling those who support such laws and uneven treatment hypocrits! A few of us even speak out about it at times. And then we are accused of justifying law breaking - even those which we abhor ourselves.
First remove the beam that is in thy own eyes, monogs, before trying to remove the speck that is in our eyes.
There are laws against "force", "slavery", and chlld and spousal abuse. ENFORCE THEM. EQUALLY! NOT singling out a person or group by putting a magnifying glass on all of them, having daily negative newspaper articles on them, and NEVER doing similar news articles on monogs/Mormons/Christians and saying all the BAD things they are doing, and blaming their RELIGION, PRACTICES, MARRIAGE TYPE, ETC. as the supposed CAUSE of it all.
>Every single one of your posts tries to justify one wrong with another wrong. You will never convince anyone with that method.
James: No, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Over and over, just as we read of it over and over in the papers, accusatory remarks on discussion groups, etc.
Want to have a level playing field? Push for decriminalization of polygamy. Push for equal rights for plygs which monogs enjoy, and THEN you'll be able to root out some more of the evils that occur within the closed societies which YOUR SOCIETY created in the first place by making plural marriage illegal. Why? Because someone coming forward won't risk being thrown in jail themselves, or other familly members or friends because they are plygs themselves. THEN, and only THEN, will these other real crimes be sucessfully prosecuted because you'll have some real witnesses who are WILLING to come forward. Keep it as it is, and you'll get what you deserve.
Simple as that.
>So the plygs are being singled out. So what!! If they didn't break the law there would be nothing to single them out for. STOP BREAKING THE LAW!! Its as simple as that.
James: Yes. They said that to the blacks as well. People with the same attitudes today against the plygs had been saying the same type of things to blacks for decades, with similar unequal laws directed at them, and they kept on rebelling and rebelling until they reached some similitude of equality. I cheer many of their efforts and methods.
They had ridiculous, unfair laws pointed at the them just as we do at us. They disobeyed them just as we do, and will continue to do, until the LAWS change!
"Viva la resistance!"
Or, as Patrick Henry said on this continent (fitting for today, July 4): "Give me liberty, or give me death!".
James
Religious Freedom Fighter
James,
First, laws against adults having sex with minors are enforced equally. You only hear more about it when it is targeted at a plyg sex offender because that has more intrigue.
Second,
Blacks didn't break the laws until they were changed. You need to get your facts straight. Rosa Parks didn't even break a law when she sat in the front of the bus. The law stated that if no other seats were available, that she had to give it up to a white patron. There were other empty seats available, but the white man demanded she give her seat up and she refused.
Third,
Your so called plight in no way compares to being a slave, and then having to live through laws that actually were written that only blacks could break. Its disgusting that you try to associate with that.
Fourth,
It still boils down to a bunch of idiots that can't seem to live within the law. Why can't you get that thru your thick skull?
Practicing polygamy through "spiritual marriages" is not against the law. You can do that until the cows come home. Only when you BREAK THE FRIGGIN LAW does the state come after you...laws like underage marriage, insurance fraud, and welfare fraud. HOW STUPID CAN YOU REALLY BE? Any trouble that comes to you is YOUR OWN FAULT!!
When will you idiots realize that if you stop breaking the law, the state will go away and leave you alone. You can practice your beliefs without fear. Why is this such a hard thing to understand.
No where in the scriptures or canon does is mandate that underage marriage is a commandment or is needed to achieve exaltation.
Fifth,
You keep pointing out that marriage for monogs is legal at the age of 14-16, but plygs have to wait until they are 18. You always leave out the part about LEGAL MARRIAGE. Marriage is legal at the age of 14 (if the state approves - which is extremely rare) and 16 (if the parent approves) only when the marriage is being performed is a legal marriage. "Spiritual Marriage" is not legally recognized which is why you can get away with it if participants are adults, and why you get prosecuted when participants are underage.
Still more comments/responses below:
>Bishop Rick said...
>James,
>Blacks didn't break the laws until they were changed.
James: Changed when? When slaves gained their liberty, and so new laws against Blacks needed to be created to "keep 'em in line"? Or, new ones created in the 1800's and 1900's to put them in their place?
>You need to get your facts straight. Rosa Parks didn't even break a law when she sat in the front of the bus. The law stated that if no other seats were available, that she had to give it up to a white patron. There were other empty seats available, but the white man demanded she give her seat up and she refused.
James: Sorry, I wasn't specific enough for you. She was required, by law, to give up her seat in the front of the bus if a white wanted it. Different laws for Blacks and whites in the south. Is this an isolated case? Or, were there more? Should I list a few of them...having separate, bad quality drinking fountains compared to whites, paid for with tax dollars? Separate and poor bathrooms? Separate eating areas? Theaters? Schools?
>Your so called plight in no way compares to being a slave, and then having to live through laws that actually were written that only blacks could break.
James: Laws in the past have been crafted, and rather recently more were created, designed specifically for Mormon Fundamentalists. Do I need to list them?
Also, commoon laws are unequally enforced. For instance, unlawful cohabitation? Enforced against monogamists? Or against plygs? Did they round up a bunch of Monogs and put them in jail for unlawful cohabitation in 1935? In 1945? In 1953? How about recently - 2001? Scores of plygs have been arrested and put in jail for these crimes which were put in place and used to go after Plygs, not Monogs.
>Its disgusting that you try to associate with that.
James: And, it is sad that you just don't "get it" (using your own words).
>It still boils down to a bunch of idiots that can't seem to live within the law. Why can't you get that thru your thick skull?
James: It appears that you are taking this a bit too personally and are resorting to personal attacks. Again.
Discussing principles can be a fruitful exercise. Personal insults is a waste of time.
We will follow the Constitutional laws of the land. These unConstitutional ones we will ignore as we choose. Buffet style.
>Practicing polygamy through "spiritual marriages" is not against the law. You can do that until the cows come home.
James: Wrong again! There are laws against solemning spiritual marriages, entering into them, bringing one across state lines in order for them to enter into a marriage, and then living in such relationship. And, to boot, a Monog can live together with another, and it won't be prosecuted. Yet, if one is a Plyg, they have and are prosecuted for it. I've got evidence. Do you or anyone else know of ANYONE arrested and prosecuted and found guilty and placed in jail for cohabiting in a Monogamous relationship? Please show me a single case in the past, say, 50 years and I'll shut up.
>Only when you BREAK THE FRIGGIN LAW does the state come after you...laws like underage marriage, insurance fraud, and welfare fraud. HOW STUPID CAN YOU REALLY BE? Any trouble that comes to you is YOUR OWN FAULT!!
James: Again, they said the same thing to the Blacks.
Again, we won't submit to tyrannical laws, but will break them when necessary - especially those directed only at us.
>When will you idiots realize that if you stop breaking the law, the state will go away and leave you alone. You can practice your beliefs without fear. Why is this such a hard thing to understand.
James: You apparently are ignorant of most of the laws created specifically for Plygs. We refuse to comply. Got any more stupid laws you'd like to create?
>No where in the scriptures or canon does is mandate that underage marriage is a commandment or is needed to achieve exaltation.
James: No where in canon does it mandate that a young woman must reach the age of 16 or 18 in order to get married. No where in scripture is there a definition that matches yours or society's definition of what "underage" is. But, scripture says contrary to society's modern day definition.
We do, however, have cases of revelation as who should marry whom, and when. Timing. And, what needed to occur FIRST before the young woman could get married - menses. And, there are histories that stated their ages when they got married to prophets/patriarchs. Common denominator? The age of 13-14.
>You keep pointing out that marriage for monogs is legal at the age of 14-16, but plygs have to wait until they are 18. You always leave out the part about LEGAL MARRIAGE.
James: Of course. Because LEGAL marriage is defined by Monogs, NOT Plygs. A law which doesn't restrict them, but others NOT like them. Like guitarists outlawing pianos - it doesn't affect them, but pianists. Sure, they can be pianists, they just don't get to play the pianos anymore. Perhaps they should just learn to play guitars.
>Marriage is legal at the age of 14 (if the state approves - which is extremely rare) and 16 (if the parent approves) only when the marriage is being performed is a legal marriage.
James: Monogamist marriages are "legal". Not polygamous marriages. That's the point! Monogamist also define which marriages are recognized or not, who performs them (Monogamists), and will place plygs in jail for not only trying to perform a "legal" marriage, but a "spiritual" one as well. Or? Perhaps the Feds are mistaken with a warrant out for Warren Jeffs arrest for "solemnizing" "illegal" marriages.
James
Justice,
You are a sad individual. You have chosen to practice the religion of a cult and openly break laws in the process. There is absolutely no proof that this religion (or any related religions) have any basis other than heresay, and there is overwhelming proof that this stuff is just plain ole false. You are basing your life and entire belief system on heresay. Very very sad. In addition, you are flat out wrong in all your arguments.
I hope down the road you will realize that what you are doing was instituted by people only interested in sex, not religion, and that it is demeaning to women.
I'm done with you.
Brooke,
Reading the comments by Bishop Rick and James Justice both frighten and encourage me. Bishop Ricks comments are so typical of the hatred exhibited so often towards polygamists. I would know, as I am a practicing polygamist. I was also encouraged by James Justice defensive remarks in our behalf. He has it right on, and expresses how I feel very well. I don't dare to leave my identity for obvious reasons, so I will leave an alias. Miss Polyg
Post a Comment
<< Home