Guess What, Brigham Didn't Do It

The Deseret News and the Salt Lake Tribune (via the Associated Press) carried stories this weekend about a presentation made by Richard Turley to the Mormon History Association. For those of you who don’t know, the MHA is made up of professional and amateur historians interested in exploring a variety of Mormon topics at conferences and in publications. It includes members of the LDS Church, Community of Christ (RLDS) and other denominations that trace their roots to Joseph Smith.

Richard Turley, who is the LDS Assistant Church Historian, along with retired BYU history professor Ronald Walker and Glen Leonard, former Director of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art, are the authors of the upcoming book, Massacre at Mountain Meadows. They were hired by the LDS Church to write the book, and it appears they are laying groundwork in advance of its release. While the book purports to be an objective synthesis of their findings and conclusions, it seems as though it is seen by non-Mormons as a conduit for the LDS Church’s side of the story. How fair that perception is, I don’t know.

The big news Turley announced at this year’s MHA conference is that Brigham didn’t order the massacre. Deseret News religion editor Carrie Moore reported Turley as saying:

“There is insufficient evidence to say former LDS Church President Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre and ample evidence that says he did not.”

Turley’s announcement was no surprise. After all, the book was commissioned and paid for by the Church. But that doesn’t mean Turley is wrong -- just that he concluded what was expected. Of course, the book will be expected to produce compelling analysis and argument, if not concrete evidence, to back up his assertion.

I have tried to educated myself about this horrible incident, first by reading Juanita Brooke’s Mountain Meadows Massacre, then Will Bagley’s Blood of the Prophets and lastly, Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. Along the way I have seen a lot of debate and commentary about who is the most biased, who is the best historian, and who has the biggest chip on his or her shoulder. What appears to be consistent is that there is no reliable smoking gun showing Brigham Young ordered the deed. There is a lot of discussion about culpability before -- and cover up after -- the event, but nothing that concretely shows Young saying, “DO IT.”

Massacre at Mountain Meadows is set for release this summer or fall. My hunch is that it will not settle the debate as to what really happened. And I suspect that given the Church’s sponsorship, it probably won’t be seen as a reliable and unbiased account of the event by those outside the Church. Even I have a hard time believing the authors would produce a volume that was seriously damaging to the Church. Turley said that he would go where the evidence led him, but I find it hard to believe that the authors can produce a book and not be mindful of who is paying the bills. Turley's response to this, Carrie Moore reports:

"Some might wonder whether I would have had my hand slapped if I learned Brigham Young ordered the massacre." As an employee of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Turley said he made senior church leaders "aware of my intent to follow the evidence to its conclusion. They supported it and, to a man, were willing to accept it and follow the truth."

Well, in spite of my skepticism, I will read the book and see if it feels believable and fair. Two of the other three books I read certainly didn’t seem evenhanded to me. I found the Bagley book unpersuasive because I felt he had an agenda and stacked his evidence and conclusions in such a manner as to back up his thesis irrespective of the support. I suppose that’s what an author is supposed to do when making an argument, but I didn’t trust his judgment. And the Krakauer book seems even more sensationalistic and agenda-driven. I felt Krakauer completely missed the boat when he left the impression that the LDS and fundamentalist Mormons are essentially the same. That certainly has not been my experience and I thought he muddily lumped us together. So that leaves me with Juanita Brooks, and I am OK with that. I found her book compelling and plenty damning of the Church, if that’s what one seeks. It certainly didn’t whitewash anything. I thought she placed plenty of blame without going beyond what she could reasonably conclude about the event.

And while I note my default position of skepticism about the upcoming book’s impartiality, I hope to be open-minded enough not to dismiss it if it is compelling. And the book has one very good thing going for it – Ronald Walker. I admire him as a historian and have been impressed with his career and ability to produce quality and, I believe, trustworthy work. And it doesn't hurt that he was the Bishop that saw me off on my mission.

So my question is this, is there anything that could come out in this book that could change your mind about the event? Do people’s feelings about the culpability of Brigham Young and the LDS Church hierarchy rest upon whether they believe in the Church or not? And does a person simply pick the historical exposition that best fits what they already think, or can people be convinced to think otherwise despite preconceived notions?

I Think This Went Well But Who Knows

Well, I gave my talk today. I felt pretty good about how it went. People were polite and complementary but how do really know what people think. The comment which brought the biggest smile to my face was when my neighbor, a new convert, said "that was freaking fantastic." I told him that was one the best things anyone had every said to me. I owe a lot to my wife on this one -- she is a much better writer and message crafter than me. Of course, that's what she does for a living. She edited this for content and clarity several times for me. She may not be a Mormon but she gets us. So, here's a shout out to you helpmeet.

I have to admit I am jealous Elder O’Toole is spending the next two years in Ireland sharing the gospel full time. I fondly recall my time in the London South Mission. So much of my life and world view was shaped by my mission. It was an incredible time of clarity and focus, and I hope Elder O'Toole is blessed with as wonderful an experience as I had.

I get to talk today about member missionary work. But before I start, let me congratulate everyone here. We have been phenomenally successful missionaries. By almost any measure, Church growth is remarkable. From its humble beginnings as an upstart church one hundred and sixty-eight years ago, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now has a presence in over 160 countries. It has more than 52,000 full-time missionaries and exceeds 13 million members. Membership has quadrupled in the last 40 years.

But I don’t have to tell you that our Church is not one to be content with doing well -- we perpetually seek to do better. We push ever onward and upward in our quest to spread the gospel. And a big part of that undertaking rests with people like you and me – the regular members of the church. If you haven’t repeatedly heard the call for member missionary work, then you have been napping in Church and watching something other than General Conference.

There are a lot of ways to be active member missionaries. For some, it is an easy matter to approach strangers and strike up a discussion about the Church. Some people comfortably and successfully distribute multiple copies of the Book of Mormon. These gifted advocates thrive on the challenges and rewards of overt proselytizing. But for many of us, the thought of spreading the word in such a bold and extroverted manner is frightening. Instead, we prefer to cautiously make friends, hoping that they will make it easy for us to share our faith. And then there are those of us who are so uncomfortable with the thought of discussing our beliefs that we simply do nothing, the result being that we perpetually feel bad about ourselves and question our commitment to the gospel.

Whatever your comfort level, there are some things, I believe, that all of us can do that will enhance our missionary efforts and will increase the receptiveness of potential converts. Simply put, we can live our lives in a positive way that draws the attention of others. With our example we can influence their feelings about the Church, and possibly lead some to enquire after our message and accept the gospel. We can be open to and pursue religious discussions, not in a preachy way, but in a manner where we share our beliefs and views while learning of those of others. This may sound like a comparatively passive way to spread the gospel, but I think it is actually an extremely effective method for promoting interest in and conversation about our beliefs.

Many, if not most of us, are lifelong members of the Church. Not having lived outside the Church, it is hard for us to understand that many people have wildly inaccurate and ill conceived ideas of who and what we are. It may be easy to dismiss their perceptions, but that doesn’t change what they think. You know the saying, perception is reality. And it’s hard to be an effective missionary if those who don’t know us believe us to be a dangerous and crazy cult. Whether we like it or not, we have a lot of work to do to let others know that we are not to be feared or mistrusted. We need to let others see who and what we are. But in order to enable others to see the real us, we need to understand how they see us now.

Dealing with the perceptions of the Church has been on the minds of several General Authorities lately. Last year, while serving as the head of the Church Missionary Committee, Elder Quentin L. Cook told a group of BYU students that some Latter-day Saints are frustrated because they see this as a difficult time to spread the gospel message. After all, Elder Cook said, according to a recent Gallup poll, 46 percent of Americans view Mormons unfavorably, 11 percent don’t know we are, and 18 percent think of polygamy when our name is mentioned.

Let me repeat that, 46 percent of Americans view us unfavorably. And only 42% view us favorably. That means there are more people that see us negatively than positively. I realize that we as a people are not running for office, but if we were, we probably couldn’t win with those numbers. I don’t know about you but I am quite surprised to find that level of discomfort with us. I know we have a long history of strained relations with the public at large, but I thought we had largely put those troubles behind us. After all, Church members have risen to tops of their fields in many areas of business, sports and public life. But in spite of this, people still hold a lot in incorrect ideas about us.

Now, I have to admit I am a bit of a media junkie. I am fascinated by politics, religion and pop culture and how they intersect. And when it comes to Mormons and the media, this last year has been a veritable Chuck-O-Rama of plenty and indulgence.

There were our American Idol contestants, David Archuleta and Brooke White. When Brooke announced to Simon, Randy and Paula that she didn’t see R rated movies, I turned to my wife and proclaimed the obvious: “she’s a Mormon.” There was Mitt Romney’s run for President. It was fascinating, revealing and troubling to see how his religion impacted his undertaking. Then there was the storm of coverage that accompanied the raids on the FLDS community in Texas, and our Church’s rigorous efforts to ensure we were we not lumped in with the FLDS in the eyes of the world.

For better or worse, this last year could rightly be dubbed the year of the Mormons in the media because so much attention has been directed at the Church and its members.

This attention has been commented upon several times recently by Elder Russell M. Ballard, who serves on the Church Public Affairs Committee. Two months ago, when speaking to the BYU Management Society in Washington, D.C., he noted that the level of media attention toward the Church was higher in the last year than in the last century, largely because Mitt Romney sought the presidency. While stressing the political neutrality of the Church, he noted all the debate and discussion in news columns, on TV and talk shows, and on Internet blogs. But what really grabbed his attention was what the coverage and demonstrated about how others view’s of the Church.

He said

what is really interesting to me and our Public Affairs team was whether all of this had any affect on the way people perceive The Church

He further said,

I personally think interest in the Church over the past year and a half was a plus. I’d much rather have people talking about us than ignoring us. The biggest problem we face is apathy. Still, we have learned a lot. One thing we have concluded is that even after one hundred seventy eight years, there is more misinformation out there than we had imagined.

Elder Ballard indentified two main sources for this misinformation and ill will: One on the right and the other on the left.

If you have been following this as well, it will should no surprise that one of our main detractors are conservative Christians who don’t like our doctrine and translate that into public opposition. We have read, over and over again, Elder Ballard said, of accusations that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a cult and does not follow the tenets of mainstream Christianity.

The second source of opposition he identified comes from some on the left who target the Church over moral issues like abortion and same gender marriage.

While recognizing a wide spectrum of opinion, Elder Ballard said he was most interested in the perspective of those who fell between the two extremes, the great mass in the middle. Elder Ballard told his audience

What is of greatest interest to me is the perceptions of the great mass of American people who are in the middle of these two extremes

Many of these people are simply puzzled. If they know a Latter-day Saint, they may have a positive impression and consider Mormons model citizens. Still, they hear assertions or descriptions of our Christian doctrines that seem unfamiliar. They hear harsh — sometimes mean-spirited — criticisms or accusations. Many want answers, and the places they are most likely to seek those answers are either on the Internet or from their Mormon acquaintances.

Lately, there’s been one more factor influencing those caught between the two ideological extremes: the FLDS raid in Texas and the avalanche of news coverage and commentary that accompanied it. This single event drew international attention on our Church – and that attention for the most part wasn’t positive. And much of it has been downright wrong. To combat the misinformation, Church leaders and public relations officials have worked vigorously to provide accurate information.

Elder Ballard weighed in on this in his April address as well. He said

in the past two weeks we have seen a flood of publicity coming out of Texas where state authorities have removed women and children from the FLDS polygamous community. This religious group, of course, has nothing to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most of the news media have attempted to make that clear. But a few—especially some in other countries—have confused their readers or viewers by suggesting that this group in Texas is somehow connected to us, and, of course, you know that they are not. This is currently a very difficult Public Affairs challenge.

Difficult indeed as many of you likely know. I imagine a lot of you have had conversations on an airplane or with a non-member about how the LDS and FLDS Church differ. It can be a challenge to articulate the differences in a manner that is meaningful and easily understood. But it is important that those discussions occur. And remember, we may know the differences, but many others don’t.

So the question for me is this – what can be about this inaccurate information. Elder Ballard asked the same question of his audience. He put it this way

let me pose a question. What are you prepared to do about it? If you are a member of the Church, what is your responsibility during this period of unusual attention and debate? Interest has continued at a high level and probably will for some time. If a national conversation is going on about the Church, are you going to be an active participant or a silent observer?

While noting the responsibility of Church leaders to engage the media, he said that they can’t do it all, especially at the grass-roots, community level. He then called on us to take up the cause. And while acknowledging that our leaders speak authoritatively for the Church, they look to faithful members to engage personally with blogs, to write thoughtful, online letters to news organizations, and to act in other ways to correct the record with their own opinions.

Of course Elder Ballard doesn’t expect us to try and book a slot on Larry King Live or take out full page newspaper ads to get our message out. And we don’t have to militant about it. His call for action is much milder. He advised that our communications could take the form of a simple conversation. He said

I am talking about taking part in everyday conversations in an unforced way, where your values and your religious beliefs will arise naturally. No one likes to have religion thrust down their throats. Instead, allow people to see how your beliefs lift and shape your life for the better.

What I take from this is that we can and need to be part of the discussion our society is having about Mormonism. And if we do not participate, the discussion will take place without us. We need to explain and define ourselves. There is a notion in our society that it’s not polite to discuss religion. I don’t agree with that. Talking openly about religion in a spirit of exploration and understanding can bring together people with vastly different beliefs and approaches to life.

But we have to be prepared to have a discussion with people who have their own ideas and beliefs. And this can be challenging. I have a good friend who I have spent many a lively evening with jostling over the differences and culture of Mormons and Unitarians. She has not become a Mormon and I have not joined the Unitarians. But we both have learned of each other’s faith and the reasons for our association which our respective churches. It has been rewarding and thought provoking to discuss our religious differences and similarities.

But she tells me that I am one of the few Mormons that will discuss religions with her. She knows and works with scores of active members and loves to discuss religion, but she says she finds few takers. I wonder why this is. I have know her a long time, so maybe it’s a comfort thing, but I think many people are reluctant to have a real conversation with her. She won’t tolerate platitudes, she wants real ideas and real beliefs, but she loves to discuss the religious matters. Do we perhaps shy away from a discussion that requires us to move beyond a simple declaration of belief? I think a discussion requires that give more than just statements of belief. It requires an exchange of ideas and thoughts.

I personally find that deep down many people want to discuss their religious views. As we get to know each other, that quickly discover that I like discussing current events and politics and religion. I think they find it amusing and a little disconcerting but are also intrigued. I can usually get them to discuss these things with me but they want a discussion, not a sermon. They want to hear what I think and they also want to share their beliefs. So I make a strong effort to learn their views and idea while I share mine. In doing so we get to know each other.

Now many of those I talk to may find me unconventional and quirky. But they also know that I am a seeker of personal and religious understanding. And that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the foundation from which I conduct my exploration. And I believe that in my own little way I am sharing the gospel and getting information out there.

So Brothers and Sisters, I will ask the same question Elder Ballard asked – what are you prepared to do about it. I hope you will take up his challenge and join the discussion.

I say these things in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.

This Could Be Interesting

So I’ve got this little problem. I was asked today to speak in sacrament meeting next Sunday. Because the other speaker is a young man who is leaving on a mission, I have been asked to focus my comments on member missionary work. I guess it’s pretty clear that you don’t get assigned a sacrament talk based on qualifications. I am certainly not much of a missionary, unless discussing the similarities between the FLDS practice of polygamy and that of my great grandparents constitutes sharing the gospel. In fact, most of my sharing time is spent trying to understand my connection to the church rather than trying to connect others.

I have given a talk in sacrament meeting about 2 times in the last 15 years, but I have some strong notions about what makes a talk good. But I am having a tough time figuring out how to make this topic fit into my idea of a good talk.

I hope the talk to be

Interesting

Honest

Thoughtful

Thought provoking

Helpful to those listening

Because the topic of member missionary work is one that the average member has heard about 10 million times, I am trying hard to think of something that won’t put my listeners to sleep. Any ideas?

Delusions of Candor

“Truth” is a core concept in Mormonism. Just think how often you hear one of these statements. 1) “I know the Church is true” 2) “I testify to the truthfulness of the gospel” 3) “I know the Book of Mormon is the truest book on earth” 4) “I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet” and 6) “I know President Monson is a true and living prophet.”

Before I mislead you, this post is not about whether Mormonism is true or not. It’s about what, if anything, Mormon use of the words true/truth/truthfulness have to do with truth’s synonym – candor.

For purposes of this discussion, I use the following definitions.

Truth (as understood by Mormons)

The LDS conception of truth does not fit any of the categories in which it has been discussed in the Western philosophical tradition…In the Western philosophical tradition…some have said [truth] is the correspondence with reality that true statements possess…[F]or Latter-day Saints, as their scriptures and everyday discourse reveal, truth is not primarily a matter of the correctness of ideas or statements...Though they do speak of the truth of statements, they most often use the word "truth" to signify an entire way of life—specifically, the way of life exemplified, prescribed, and guided by Jesus Christ.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism Volume 4, title, TRUTH.

Truth (as understood generally)

A universal, unchanging, provable fact that is applicable to all persons and all things at all times.

Candor

A frank, open speech or expression

For me, truth and candor are hard to separate. When I ask a question, I consider the response to see if it rings true. I assess not only veracity, but openness and frankness. An assertion may be technically correct, but if it’s not forthright, it may also lack truth. If I sense that I am only getting part of the story, I can’t help but question the truthfulness of the speaker. Consider: Once in an institute class at the University of Utah, we studied the violence committed against Mormons in Missouri in the late 1830s. I asked my instructor why Mormons had been so poorly treated. He responded that it was because of their beliefs. I asked if there was more to it than that. He repeated it was because of their beliefs. Feeling that was not the whole story, I asserted that there must have been more going on. He repeated yet again, somewhat testily, that it was persecution based on their beliefs. His tone let me know the discussion was over. While his answer may have not have been false, it was far from true. His refusal to give a candid and thorough answer was a type of falsehood.

For a church that relies so heavily on truth, I often find candor in short supply. Sometimes individual members will discuss their ideas and feelings about the Church openly and honestly, but I think most are pretty guarded with their thoughts. And institutionally, official presentation and communication focus more on indoctrination than discourse. Questioning is frowned upon and exploration of sensitive topics is discouraged.

The challenge for me is that my concept of truth is much closer to that used outside the Church. In the Church, truth is a path or a way of life as opposed to a matter of correctness of ideas. When I suspend my conventional idea of truth and consider the Church approach, Mormon truth claims make a lot more sense. But when I view Mormonism with the general definition of truth, church rhetoric and curriculum seem selectively propagated.

This leads me to the central question of this post: Are the Mormon Church and its members candid in the pronouncement and discussion of their beliefs, history and practices? I think the answer is no but reasonable minds can differ and I am open to differing conclusions.

If I view the truth as provable fact, the answer is no, the Church is not candid. The Church presents a glossy image of itself. For the most part, it discloses only facts that cast it in a favorable light. It rarely acknowledges flaws or mistakes. If Church leaders themselves have doubts, you don’t know it because they don’t voice such reservations. The Church makes a case the way a lawyer would – it presents information that is favorable and downplays the rest. The movie Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration is an example of this. It presents an idealized picture of Joseph Smith with nary a mention of his problematic actions like polygamy, treasure hunting and secrecy.

The Church’s lack of candor is particularly notable when discussing its history. I am not accusing the Church of falsifying the truth; I’m saying that its statements, curriculum, and communications generally lack openness, frankness and balance. You won’t hear much in Sunday School or in general conference about polygamy, blood atonement, the Adam God theory, or the priesthood ban.

However, if you consider the issue of candor in the context of the Church’s definition of truth, then the Church fares much better. If truth signifies a way of life – one prescribed and guided by Jesus Christ -- then Church pronouncements and curriculum are arguably pretty straightforward. The Church advocates its version of how to discover truth through living a Christ-like life and downplays or omits information that it thinks will detract from its mission. With this framework in mind, one might argue that if the Church were more candid, it might actually cause people to hear less of its Christ-centered message and instead focus on matters which the Church deems superfluous to living a Christ-like life.

That’s quite a stretch for me. If the Church disregards the conventional notion of truth and candor, it subjects itself to a great deal of misunderstanding and runs the very real risk of being seen as deceitful. Acculturated Mormons might get by with a definition of truth that is at odds with its generally accepted meaning, but even members fully versed in Mormon jargon can suffer conviction whiplash when they discover information at odds with what they have been taught in official discourse. And as for outsiders looking in at the church, it’s not hard to see how they can see the Church as disingenuous and even deceitful when the Church opts to use only facts it finds helpful while ignoring the rest.

So I guess what I am saying is that I can understand why the Church and most of its members feel that they seek, share, and possess the truth. But I also see why many outside the Church view the Church’s claim to truth with pronounced skepticism. I hope that we can bear in mind that the Church’s idea of truth can be hard for some insiders and most outsiders to comprehend. And with that realization, we can opt for a more conventionally candid discussion of our history and beliefs.

FLDS on the Catwalk

In the opinion section of the New York Times, editorialist Timothy Egan had this to say a couple of days ago about the appearance of the FLDS women

You see these 1870 Stepford wives with the braided buns and long dresses, these men with their low monotones and pious, seeming disregard for the law on child sex — and wonder: who opened the time capsule?

Is Egan for real? Is he now the fashion editor for the paper? A better forum for his comments is the Discovery Channel's What Not To Wear. I mean come on, how pathetic is it that he is dissing this whole community because they favor modesty.

And how about the LDS that slam the FLDS for the same fashionable reasons. LDS members are bombarded with calls for modesty. But their sense of modesty seems to adjust rather nicely to changing fashions in the country at large. LDS dress modestly alright, but it’s relative. What is modest for many in an LDS ward today would likely be deemed immodest 30 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is time to go back to wearing swimming costumes and I hate it that LDS church attire has practically become a uniform, but don't be so petty as to criticize people for actually dressing in accordance with their beliefs, even if they dress like their grandparents did.

Polygamy as an Alternative Lifestyle

Not surprisingly, the FLDS roundup is generating a lot of traffic in the blogosphere. But the range of sentiment is far from uniform. I have been struck at how different my views are from some fellow Mormons. In an attempt to understand these differences, I have tried to consider the reasons for my views and those of those who think differently.

My Views

Generally speaking, I believe polygamists, the FLDS included, should be left alone. America is a big diverse place (or it should be) and there is plenty of room for people to do their own thing. I say live and let live. In this sense, I see polygamy as an alternative lifestyle. People engage of lots of behaviors I don’t but that doesn’t mean laws should be made to make them illegal. This is especially true when it comes to religion. Americans should be tolerant of religious behavior that deviates from the norm.

Of course child abuse should not be allowed, but polygamy itself, is something people should be allowed to practice. And I premise my statements here on the notion that what is really going on in Texas is the suppression of the FLDS church and its polygamous practices and not child abuse per se.

Given that polygamy is illegal, prosecution of it should be engaged in only in the rarest of circumstances and when other things are going on like statutory rape or welfare fraud. Polygamist should not be singled out. Government authorities have a great deal of latitude in what they choose to go after and polygamy should not even be on their list. There are other legitimate ills they should focus on.

Ok, so why do I think the way I do? In trying to understand my outlook, I disclose the following:

1) Family -- I have a historical connection with Polygamy. My grandmother and grandfather were raised in polygamist households. I see from my own family history that the practice of polygamy doesn’t make you a bad person or one unworthy of rearing children.

2) Church -- I belong to a church which originally practiced polygamy. It reveres a man (Joseph Smith) who had numerous wives, some of them in their teens. My Church still practices a type of polygamy (a man may be married to more than one woman in the afterlife although he is limited to one at a time in this life. I would consider myself a hypocrite if I came down on the FLDS for their polygamous practices given the practices of the Church I belong to.


3) Society – I live in a society where people can engage in all types of previously unacceptable forms of behavior. We allow for all types of alternative lifestyles and arrangements but we cannot allow this one?

4) Politics -- I consider myself a moderate democrat but I have a strong Libertarian streak. I believe the State should sparingly regulate personal behavior.

5) Law -- I am a strong believer in personal and parental rights. I believe the Texas authorities have violated the FLDS members’ civil rights and have reached well beyond what is reasonable and justifiable in how they have handled this matter.

Given my perspective, I have been quite surprised by the number of fellow Mormons who think the opposite. Many Mormon bloggers support what the Texas authorities have done. And even more support the suppression of polygamy but have qualms about the way Texas has gone about it. Here is my brief break down of their thinking:

1) Some bloggers think polygamy is just plain wrong. They don’t like it that the Mormon Church practiced it in the past and they don’t like it in any other church that practices it now. They think that there is good reason that it is against the law and it should not be tolerated. They think Texas has done what Utah and Arizona should have done long ago.

2) Some bloggers think that FLDS style polygamy is wrong. They think it has little in common with the former practice of the Mormon Church. They think that polygamy under the FLDS is abusive and insular. They think that FLDS men are pedophiles and control freaks and cowards.

3) Some bloggers think that the FLDS have no heavenly authorization to practice polygamy. They believe that the Mormon Church had God’s permission to engage in polygamy but that that permission was rescinded. As such, the FLDS practice is inherently wrong and a violation of God’s laws.

I don’t find these positions compelling. Perhaps I am blinded by my history and biases. Perhaps I have simplified or misstated the position of those that don’t share my views. I still think we should leave them alone.

Stopping Gay Marriage One Polygamist at a Time

Just after the raid on the FLDS compound in Texas, the Tribune carried an article comparing the views on polygamy of Congressman Joe Cannon and Republican rivals vying for his seat. Cannon reportedly said that the government should not prosecute polygamists solely because of plural marriage. Conversely, David Leavitt (Michael Leavitt’s younger brother), was quoted saying that “polygamists should be prosecuted, or it will pave the road to same-sex marriage.” He further said if “we allow two consenting women and a consenting man to redefine what our society says is marriage, then we have opened the door for the redefinition of marriage for same-gender marriage. This is a broader scope than just polygamy."

Leavitt is not just blowing political smoke. As Iron County Attorney he prosecuted and got a conviction against Tom Green for bigamy. Green did six years behind bars. To his credit, I suppose, Leavitt is forthright about wanting to lock up polygamist. He says prosecute them plain and simple. You don’t need the pretense of saving children from deluded evil parents; just prosecute the parents outright for polygamy. And how about his rationale -- he wants to jail consenting polygamists because if we don’t, same-gender marriage may gain acceptance. I don’t know about you but I find that reasoning chilling.

Leavitt’s comments make me wonder if the Texas authorities don’t share his views on polygamy and have decided to go after the FLDS as harshly as they can. Perhaps the authorities saw the abuse charge as a gift -- a gift that allowed them to take battle to the entire FLDS community. In retrospect, they may have over played their hand, but time will tell. So is it just me or does it seem that what Texas is really trying to do is stomp the FLDS church out of existence?