Sister Wives Blog: cosmo archive updated 12/20/11

Cosmo's Corner

We'd like to introduce our newest section here at SWB - COSMO'S CORNER.

Troy Bowles has been our resident philosopher for a while. We thought it was time that Troy be given an easy to find place on the blog where all of you can ask him questions, and find his answers with ease.

Here's some tidbits from Troy about himself:

Public philosopher · Jan 2009 to present

I try very hard to solve complicated philosophical and social problems.

I am writing a book about the philosophical problems I've faced in my experiences with Mormon fundamentalism, particularly with the issue of polygamy.

I lecture and tutor students of political philosophy. I also write philosophical opinions on daily, local issues as well as global issues.

I write human rights theories, particularly with regard to victims of abuse in polygamous societies as well as other minority individuals who still struggle for equal status, like my LGBT friends and fellow non-religious friends too, and anyone else I can think of who isn't getting a fair shake.

I specialize in political philosophy. I'm an expert on matters concerning the ethical and moral considerations regarding polygamous societies. It's my life's work. I am the only living philosopher who does this particular kind of work.

Some of my friends call me Cosmo. It's a nickname that means a great deal to me, in part because of my cosmopolitan attitude and my cosmological thinking, and in part in remembrance of a great hero of my youth, Carl Sagan. We are all just one universe

The historical figure for whom my daily behavior most emulates is without doubt my great hero Socrates.

Western religion has become so authoritarian and fear-laden that it stifles many people in their attempts to get to their true, inner spirituality. This is why I'm more drawn to something like Buddhism where there is no divine authority whatsoever and the very devout types like monks and nuns have no kind of authority, but instead live lives of devotion and non-violence. I can't say that I'm a practicing Buddhist; I'm a totally unattached thinker. I can only claim to be a cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world. And I've dedicated my whole life to this kind of secular humanism. I also get a huge spiritual lift from practicing a quiet vegan lifestyle and I keep a very tiny carbon footprint. This is the sort of thing that keeps my hungry spirit satisfied yet always craving more.

One more thing about me for which I'm either celebrated or notorious is my habit of reminding people that I will explain my thoughts to them; not the other way around. It gets really interesting at times. Some people never seem to pick up on it.

Sooooo, when you have a burning question about the AUB or anything else you'd like Troy's opinion on, please post them here for everyone to enjoy!

Mister Sister

128 comments:

BurntToast said...: Hi Troy! I am so glad we can put these in one spot. I am sure I missed several of your answers but not going through enough times! YEAH! If I ask something you've alwready answered, forgive me. 1. I remember you saying that you left by 17. Were you thrown out because of being a threat to the older men ("lost boys") or did you choose to leave. 2. You surely know members of the Brown family. What are they like? 3. If you could ask Kody Brown one question on National TV, what would it be? Thanks!!; December 6, 2011 5:49 AM
Mister Sister said...: Troy, Obviously these women give birth for secrecy. Has that caused the AUB to have more problems with deaths, injuries at birth, etc.?; December 6, 2011 9:47 AM
Anonymous said...: wow, Troy! i don't even recognize you from this picture! i just watched your interview w/Doris a few weeks ago. Is this a newer recent look since then? i do like it! you look all Ernest Hemingway-ish.; December 6, 2011 11:22 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: 1. Great question! I have quite a story about this and it was something that took a long time for me to articulate. How exactly the "lost boys" end up exiting these societies is always unique to the young man. Nobody wanted me to leave, specifically. The competition issue is something that can be understood from two perspectives, but we rarely hear the perspective of the young man who actually went through it. My parents had high hopes for me entering into the "principle" and having several of my own wives. When I was in my teens, I was naturally very interested in the girls my age, but finding a girlfriend was no simple matter. The girl who most intested me was in a high ranking family, and I found myself heartbroken when I couldn't overcome that barrier. There was one other girl who interested me and I inquired about her, according to procedure, and her father told me she was too young to have a boyfriend. Within two months I noticed that she was married to one of Owen Allred's nephews. This made me angry. I was going to a public high school just outside Salt Lake City and I met and fell in love with an LDS girl. Through the troubles of that doomed relationship I realized that it was time for me to leave Mormonism once and for all. So, one Sunday in March, I simply told my dad I wasn't going to church. He didn't say anything about it until I'd missed three weeks in a row. Then, when he couldn't hold it in any longer he came roaring into my bedroom wondering what was going on. I simply told him I wasn't going to go to church anymore. My 18th birthday was six weeks away, but I couldn't wait until then. I was finished. I was grown enough to be able to fend him off if it got physical so I didn't budge. After all of that, I made friends on the outside. I was the lucky one. The term "lost boy" didn't exist back then. I didn't fully realize the abusive effects I'd have to deal with later, but my relationship with my family has been strained ever since then. I'm 45 now and my dad is fading away with Alzheimer's disease. Most of my siblings don't talk to me. They hate it when I go public with bad news. I really only talk to my mother anymore, and that's not very frequent.; December 6, 2011 12:24 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: 2. I knew Meri's older brothers, Marc and Adam. His father, Bill Barber was always working on some get-rich-quick scheme, which brought him into contact with my own parents. My mother is a classically-trained pianist and she had devised a game that would make it interesting and fun to learn to read music. It was a great little game, but it was a product for the 1950's. They produced a number of board games for the public and when my mother handed me my own copy, the first thing I noticed on the front was a misspelled word. They had made thousands of these things that way. I asked my mom how such an obvious thing could have slipped by and she told me that Bill Barber had drawn it up quickly and submitted it without showing it to anyone else. That product was a dud. Adam and Marc didn't seem like happy teenagers, but it was hard to tell if any of us were happy. Bill Barber? RIP. 3. This is the best question of all for this board. If I could confront him, I'd ask him if he's aware of any of the sexual abuse problems that have almost torn the AUB to pieces in the last 20 years. But you know me, if I ask him a question, I've already sorted through every option available for him to make excuses. I'll be six steps ahead. Getting the questions right is what we try to do in philosophy, and I've got a bunch of questions to which I already know their private rationalizations. Each one just leads to unraveling many others and what happens again and again is denial or outright lying to avoid saying anything negative about their craft. When sex abuse charges and convictions start popping up among the leaders, it's time to drop the act and face the real world. Polygamy offers no advantages that ordinary monogamous families can enjoy, and it brings people into contact with terrible abuses that all of them are protecting in the end, for as long as they remain in denial. If it was my problem and three of the top apostles in the group were thrown out after allegations of child molestation (and one conviction), I'd be losing confidence really fast in their presumed authority. Yet people like Kody remain. From what I've seen, he was under the umbrella of the AUB until this show went on the air and they moved to Nevada.; December 6, 2011 12:25 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Obviously these women give birth for secrecy. Has that caused the AUB to have more problems with deaths, injuries at birth, etc.? ______________________ This is definitely a problem. When I was growing up, parents were afraid to go to the hospital for childbirth. This raises the risks of of mishaps a great deal. I have one half-sibling who almost didn't survive. She was born with a piece of the umbilical cord pinched and this caused a lot of complications. To add to this, her mother almost bled to death after the placenta detached. Rulon Allred was there, but it was somebody's bedroom.; December 6, 2011 12:30 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Oh and thank you about the picture. That one was taken in February. I shaved off my beard when I went on Doris's show, but I'm thinking about growing it back. I'm not going on until next month, so I have time to grow it in nicely.; December 6, 2011 12:34 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: To anyone who is interested, if you'd like to discuss things not related to this show, I've got my own blog where I'm starting to write about various things that interest me, like Eastern philosophies and religions. We can also get into fascinating discussions about any topic. So if you want to really discuss some interesting stuff, stop by there. I just wrote up a piece about a religion that fascinates me: Jainism. I'll add to it since it's getting a lot of attention. cosmophilosophy.blogspot.com; December 6, 2011 12:40 PM
Mono4Life said...: Hi, Troy. Thank you so much for enlightening all of us on these subjects. I've enjoyed reading your comments and watching your interviews and admire you for what you seek to accomplish with your work. My question relates to the AUB's beliefs concerning the afterlife. From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), a husband should be sealed to at least 3 wives and bear as many children as possible with those wives. They will then be eternally sealed in their own celestial kingdom or planet (or something like that). If the father is eternally sealed to his children, how would the son of a father be able to grow up, marry his own wives and bear his own children and have his own kingdom? Wouldn't he be stuck with his father? I suppose the same question could be asked about a daughter as well, as she would potentially be sealed to her own husband. It just doesn't seem to add up to me and I can't fathom how seemingly logical and intelligent people buy into this... Thanks! And P.S., I'm a huge Carl Sagan fan as well:); December 6, 2011 1:45 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Hi, Yes, you can see that their theology starts to fall apart. It's a formula that is guaranteed to fail. I guess the father becomes a sort of grandfather god with sons and grandsons for eternity, if they all make it. We don't have to think it through very far before we run into problems like this that make it totally confusing. And yes, I think to get to this level a man has to have three wives. There's another guaranteed failure. It's a system that favors an elite class and throws off lesser people on the side.; December 6, 2011 2:21 PM
Sister Martyrs said...: Hi Troy, Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. Something that has been bothering me, and I apologize if you have already fielded something similar, is how you think the AUB reacted to the Browns going public. It seems pretty apparent that the Browns were on a mission from the beginning to be prosecuted as a "test case" so that they could then sue to challenge the law. I can't imagine, based on the information that I have, that the AUB would consent to this as they seem to like to keep their group somewhat private. Can you please share your thoughts/experience on this? Also, I have posed previously that most men involved in a polygamous relationship probably would not support the legalization of marriage to multiple wives as it would ruin some of the financial schematics of their relationships. Does the AUB have a stance on the legalization of multiple spouses? Thank you in advance!; December 6, 2011 3:31 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: The AUB members and leadership are typically very shy around the media. I heard that LeMoine Jensen wasn't happy about the show and asked Kody to refrain from mentioning the AUB. This tells me there's some loss of loyalty for Kody, and that isn't surprising. They loathe publicity in the AUB. Before he died, Owen Allred stated that he preferred that the law remain in place in order to better keep "just anybody" from entering the "principle."; December 6, 2011 4:31 PM
3 wives fan said...: Dear Troy, You sound like a fascinating man and your true life stories are encyclopedic for the rest of us who were never involved in this "religion". Thank you. 1. If Kody would ever allow his women to speak privately with you, what would you tell them? Is there any hope for them?; December 6, 2011 6:53 PM
3 wives fan said...: 2. And for that matter, if the older teens were ever allowed to speak with you, what you tell them?; December 6, 2011 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I apologize if this was asked before but which wife do you think is the most likely to leave the marriage based on your experience? Which kids are most likely to move on from it too.; December 6, 2011 7:12 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Now we're getting to the tough questions that will stump me. If I could speak to any of them privately, I'd use everything I've got to explain to them the folly of what they're doing. It's just a wacky idea to promote polygamy as something sacred and I understand how people get to the point where they won't ask themselves the hard questions. But when we get to that point, we have no freedom anymore. I always think there's hope for people in these groups. Most of them are starved for wisdom and a little bit of that could really help them a lot. I hope the Browns have discovered who I am and what I have to say about all of this. My message applies to them too. When people try to make polygamy out to be harmless, the effect is always going to be more abuse of human rights. Canada's Supreme Court justice made the right decision. Societal polygamy is a system guaranteed to fail for all but the luckiest, most elite participants.; December 6, 2011 8:17 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: If the older teens were allowed to speak to me, I could give them the world in terms of empowerment. There was a point in my life when I realized that morality is an intellectual matter, and after understanding this I took complete control over my life. This puts morality on a level playing field where nobody can lie except to themselves. If morality is an intellectual matter, that simplifies everything. Now, someone just needs to convince me that a choice is the right intellectual choice and I'll do just about anything. That's a world where I can take charge of myself. All of us need to learn about this. The earlier, the better. Those kids are just dripping with potential and I'd love to see some of them taking philosophy classes at the University of Utah.; December 6, 2011 8:24 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: In my experience, if the teenagers are willing to talk openly about their dissatisfaction with Mormon fundamentalism, they're already on their way out. I constantly meet people who started doubting and it didn't take long before they saw through the madness. It just isn't reasonable at all. I'll be surprised if very many of the older kids stay with it. I don't know them well enough to name the ones who are on their way out. For all I know, they all are. I would be and I've been in that situation. I have a few siblings who have stayed, mostly my sisters, but out of the ones who have left, I'm the only one who is willing to look at the religion critically. That tends to make them all very uncomfortable except for my oldest brother, who is pretty unflappable.; December 6, 2011 8:33 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: I spend a lot of time helping university students understand the complexities of philosophy. In fact, a group I've been helping just did extremely well on a recent test. But I don't work for the university. I just help out wherever I can. I can meet with anyone in the Salt Lake area. I never charge anything for my services. I'm delighted to do it. I'd love to get a regular group of people together to discuss this in depth. I don't have my PhD yet, but I'm ready to lecture in great depth about this subject. The more people who learn to approach the matter philosophically, the better off we are as a society. Blind faith and unquestioned devotion got us into this mess, and the only way out is to get hold of ourselves and think clearly about it.; December 6, 2011 8:43 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Philosophy has a reputation for being stuffy intellectual gibberish, but if you can understand what I'm talking about through my writing, you're already doing your own philosophical thinking. I've got some papers that I wrote last year that I'd like to post on my blog about general stuff like logic and reasoning. There's no better way to maintain good intellectual hygiene, as I like to call it. Get engaged out there with your minds and stay that way. That's what I always say. Ethics is one of the four basic branches of philosophy. It's a massive field of study, but it's really nothing more than the philosophical study of morality. In ethics, we ask ourselves what morality is all about, in detail. In the end, this strikes me as the most important work going on in philosophy today. Ethicists are the ones who are asking the difficult questions that are really the most fundamental of all: What should we do? How shall we live? How can we protect liberty and well-being while keeping them carefully balanced? I'm planning to do a PhD on the ethical concerns related to polygamous society. I've been doing it for this long, I might as well go all the way. It will be a first. I'll stay close by because I'm a "public" philosopher. I have to keep my finger on that pulse at all times and this is a good place to chat with people who are dealing with the real questions.; December 6, 2011 9:00 PM
~The Bargain Babe said...: Glad to see you Troy! Question: Do members of the AUB typically vote in elections and if so, do they vote Republican? Democrat?; December 6, 2011 10:02 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Definitely Republican. If Satan himself was running on the GOP ticket, they'd take him over anyone with left leanings, especially Obama. They really hate him. I got my first taste of deep right wing political turmoil when I was growing up in the AUB.; December 6, 2011 10:30 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: The FLDS have been particularly fond of certain republicans, like Orrin Hatch and others. Hatch has even visited Colorado City on social occasions, even playing the organ in their chapel.; December 6, 2011 10:36 PM
~The Bargain Babe said...: Interesting. See that was my hunch, republican. But it seems that dems might be a better fit being that they are the ones typically supportive of gay marriage and alternate lifestyles, PLUS expanding social welfare programs. So. WHY the devotion to the GOP? Most people in my area are Republicans and I could tell you why. But I'm confused as to why the AUB would like that party?; December 6, 2011 11:36 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: I think the republicans appeal to the most backward people in the country, to be completely frank with you, BB. Theirs is a philosophy of superficial analysis. I'm not saying the democrats have it right, far from it, but the doctrines on the left require a little more analysis. Politically speaking, I'm a cosmopolitan. I have my fingers in every pie. I accept or reject at will and I avoid showing any kind of partisan loyalty. We're all in this together and we have to work out our problems with this in mind. Political parties in this country tend to be very exclusionary. I don't think that's good.; December 7, 2011 12:11 AM
Mister Sister said...: Good Morning Troy!! I actually like the pic I have of you reggae style hat!!! If you have never seen any of the videos we have put up of Troy's visits to Doris. Not only will you see the man in action, to hear his voice, how words slide out so easily, will amaze you. Is that what you call a silver tongued devil?LOL I feel a great book coming....books can not be rushed, folks. My brother is a writer, and it is tough work.; December 7, 2011 6:36 AM
GagMe said...: Dear Troy, Reading above that you couldn't date the gal you wanted a- she was to upper crust for you, or b- she married on of Rulon's nephews, make the case that the SW are lying when they say they are free to choose who they marry. Q: They are lying about free will marriages, aren't they? Q: Kody got denied to marry previous to Robyn for lack of funds, why would the AUB approve Robyn right before the show, when Christine was filing bankruptcy? Q: Don't you feel the AUB "helped" with the show, too. Do you think Robyn was married for the interest of the show? Sorry, I can't make a short question. Sister Wives do come on this blog. They are CERTAINLY aware of it, and have refused any offers to come over and chat. I believe that they would read THIS before anything. Esp. Meri. Q; Why won't they come here? Talk to you on here? You can tell when a post is them. All you have to do is study the posts like you would a crime. Easy to spot. Q: Do you see these marriages starting to crack from the show?; December 7, 2011 9:16 AM
Kittie B said...: Question: Is your mom and dad still in the AUB' or your siblings?; December 7, 2011 9:34 AM
Religulous said...: my question may seem frivolous, but I am curious about the similarities and differences of doctrines and traditions between LDS and the fundamentalist offshoots. I'd read in Carolyn Jessops book that in the FLDS they drank coffee and sometimes alcohol. Are the AUB and other sects strict about these things as well and follow the "Word of Wisdom" like the LDS or not? I think in one episode Janelle got an energy drink out of the fridge.; December 7, 2011 9:39 AM
plot said...: Troy, So many questions! If you can't get to mine, that's fine. I'm sure someone will put it in better form. Here goes - How do teenagers deal with the restrictions in AUB or fundamentalist communities? The Brown kids don't seem typical. They have lots of exposure to the outside now in Vegas. While in Utah, they must have been more sequestered. Still, with so many needy children around and so little parent time, do the adolescents have secrets and experiments that aren't publicly revealed? All teenagers do. How do they guard themselves or do they at all? What was your experience? To you think that today, with all the social media and technology, that kids have more outlets for their doubts and concerns?; December 7, 2011 11:08 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Good questions, folks. I'll be tutoring some students for a while this morning and then I'll be back here with your answers.; December 7, 2011 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Regarding your siblings you wrote: "I have a few siblings who have stayed, mostly my sisters" Very interesting. If it isn't too personal, will you elaborate on this? Did your brothers and sisters each make a conscience decision to pursue polygamy? Or were the girls married off while they were very young, have children, and are now so enmeshed in polygamy that you do not see any other future for them? Were the boys encouraged to leave or even kicked out, becoming lost boys, or did they think it through and decide polygamy was not for them? After all, the system known to be inherently abusive for women and children. Most of the people who escaped that I have seen in the media are women. So I was a little surprised when I read that your sisters are carrying on the polygamy legacy. Personally, I don't see how the system benefits anyone, at least as a human being. The people are mostly poverty stricken. Educational opportunities are abysmal at best. They are very secretive, avoiding mainstream society. Even if I lived this life, I cannot imagine encouraging my own children to live it also. They deserve so much more.; December 7, 2011 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Thanks in advance.; December 7, 2011 2:32 PM
ChinnyChinChin said...: Dear Troy, I know it's gone 'round and round, but since it's in the news again, here goes. Q: Other than not taking child brides (*Cough recently) and forced marriages, isn't the AUB very similiar to the FLDS? I somewhat look at the show overall at look at statement analysis. People can say, oh, it's scripted, etc., but I feel that these ladies really got an emotional shock watching the show themselves where they couldn't deny Kody loving the others. Q: The women have all gained a lot of weight since the show- usually it's the opposite. Do you think "seeing" it on the show makes them upset? I wish you did watch it, Troy! THANKS for all you do for us!; December 7, 2011 7:55 PM
Anonymous said...: I was visited and got to know some mormons (the boys who come door to door all the time) and we actually ended up spending quite some time with them, to the point of being invited to the local president's house for dinner and going to church with them. The church was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Can you clafily which tangent of mormon belief this is? I'm asking because I read here alot and I've seen statements from regular LDS that certain things are only believed by the fundies but my understanding was this branch we attended was regular LDS (they confirmed that)yet by accident I believe some people didn't realize we were only guests and some "private information" got exposed to us that even though did not include polygamy did incorporate some quite unusual ideas and beliefs - beliefs that I've seen regular LDS say they do not follow yet I know it was part of this so called regular LDS church because I heard and read it for myself (was asked to return the written information after I did not join the church and was informed by one of the boys that they were not supposed to have given it to me and could get into a bit of trouble). It was a very odd experience, we did not ever consider joining the church but we did go quite far with the lessons, mostly out of curosity and a too passive nature. I don't want to take up a huge space jumping right into the story but I am very curious about it after reading more about the religion and our experience with them. Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you. Seechelle; December 7, 2011 8:15 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Q: "They are lying about free will marriages, aren't they?" ____________________ I'd say they're taking liberties with the definition. It seems rather pointless to insist that the children have free will in marriage if they've been raised to believe that polygamy is a divine commandment for everyone to follow. Free will is a very sticky matter in philosophy. Some philosophers believe that all free will is just an illusion and that we can't control our choices. This is called "determinism" and the logical problems are hard to avoid when making claims like this. But if you think about it, if someone tells me that God knows everything, past, present and future, isn't that just another way of saying we really have no choice in what we're going to do? If we were to make a random choice on our own, that would mean that God doesn't know the future. Q: "Kody got denied to marry previous to Robyn for lack of funds, why would the AUB approve Robyn right before the show, when Christine was filing bankruptcy?" _____________________ It's hard to say. Maybe Kody isn't being completely open with them about his financial situation. It could also be the case that they gave in and granted the marriage after later severe episodes of whining. They often do things that way. Q: "Don't you feel the AUB "helped" with the show, too. Do you think Robyn was married for the interest of the show?" _____________________ I doubt it, really. They are much more prone to avoid publicity altogether if possible. I think the AUB leadership is too conservative to feel comfortable risking something like this for good PR. Q; "Why won't they come here? Talk to you on here? You can tell when a post is them. All you have to do is study the posts like you would a crime. Easy to spot." _____________________ I don't know why nobody ever confronts me here. I can be very easy to talk to but that changes quickly if someone is being deceptive. That's the sacred line. Cross that one and you're on your own. One reason is probably that by the time I get around to asking them a question, it's something I've been thinking about carefully. Typically, I already know the true answer, I know that they don't want to give that answer, and I've worded it in such a way that they can't change the subject without looking awkward. After running into this a couple of times, people start avoiding me. Q: "Do you see these marriages starting to crack from the show?" _____________________ All I can say is that this kind of publicity puts extreme pressure on the wives and kids. I think it was foolish to begin with and it wasn't ever very well-planned. What they may gain from publicity is coming at a huge cost to those kids, especially the older ones.; December 8, 2011 1:30 AM
Religulous said...: I am curious about the similarities and differences of doctrines and traditions between LDS and the fundamentalist offshoots. I'd read in Carolyn Jessops book that in the FLDS they drank coffee and sometimes alcohol. Are the AUB and other sects strict about these things as well and follow the "Word of Wisdom" like the LDS or not? I think in one episode Janelle got an energy drink out of the fridge.; December 8, 2011 7:57 AM
Heather said...: Good Morning! Troy, it's interesting you stay in Utah. Thoughts?; December 8, 2011 8:28 AM
Chantelle said...: I posted this question as a comment on this post and Mister Sister suggested I ask it here. So here goes: One of the questions I have is what Jeffs is planning to do once this purge is completed. At that point, he (or his lieutenants or to whomever he gives power) will be surrounded by all devoted followers. This is especially true if he forces everyone to move to Texas or some other central location. So what is he going to do with his people once he's purged out everyone who doesn't follow him? Where's he going with this plan?; December 8, 2011 12:42 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Question: Is your mom and dad still in the AUB' or your siblings? __________________ My mom and dad are still in. Most of my brothers have left. All of my full sisters have remained. Of the siblings from the other wives, I only know a few of them and from what I can tell, none of them are involved in Mormon fundamentalism anymore. I think they've all either gone into the LDS Church or they've abandoned Mormonism altogether. I'm not going to get into very much detail about my relatives except to say that they follow the trend perfectly of women remaining in and men falling away. My own reasons are pretty unique and I can't say much about my brothers. In general, however, the two brothers who remained tended always to be more compliant and docile, whereas the ones who left were all family rebels. It seems like it comes down to who is compliant and who is going to reject it. My sisters had no problem finding acceptance and they all ended up fighting off the older men who were always after them and marrying young unmarried men of their choosing. They married very high in the AUB rankings and so far, they are not practicing polygamy. It's my brothers who remained who haven't said no to that business.; December 8, 2011 1:33 PM
Sinister Sister said...: Q How many marriages has your father had, and how many siblings do you have? Q: How can your sisters remain in the AUB and not practice polygamy? (or anyone). Q: Is there a time limit on how long you may remain a 2 person couple?; December 8, 2011 2:13 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: "Are the AUB and other sects strict about these things as well and follow the "Word of Wisdom" like the LDS or not? I think in one episode Janelle got an energy drink out of the fridge." __________________________ Mormon fundamentalists have the same prohibitions against alcohol, cigarettes and coffee, but how well they adhere to these prohibitions depends on a few things. Most of the time it's little more than inconsistency. A lot of Mormon fundamentalists abstain from pork and shellfish too, at least when they're around people who are uptight about such things. From what I've seen, the older polygamist communities seem a little less restrictive about alcohol. For example, a little-known fact is that Warren Jeffs is an alcoholic and so was his father. The energy drink craze is part of a rationalization, since the Word of Wisdom doesn't actually prohibit caffeine specifically.; December 8, 2011 3:27 PM
~The Bargain Babe said...: Seechelle--I'd love to know what the doctrines were ad what was said on the written papers that you had to give back.; December 8, 2011 4:23 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Basic doctrinal differences are often just disputes over which leaders are the right ones to follow. Some are involve more detail, like the split between the Centennial Park and FLDS groups, which were related to actual power delegation in the priesthood. FLDS leaders have focused the authority over plural marriages on one single individual, in this case Warren Jeffs, whereas other groups have an authoritative group or "council" to whom such responsibilities are delegated. Somebody like Kody Brown wouldn't operate very well under Jeffs because he's flaunting their permission to continue this way. Someone here said that the Browns are independent Mormon fundamentalists, but they draw their ideas from the same source. One would have to be familiar with Mormon culture to appreciate this analogy, but in Mormon-speak, it's safe to say that "independent" Mormon fundamentalists could also be called "Jack-Mormon fundamentalists." They will stick to what they believe about the authority to practice polygamy, but they'll rationalize that they alone are the actual, true Mormon fundamentalists. If they don't do that, how is their authority special? The way I was brought up to believe, flaunting polygamy is akin to "casting pearls before swine." It's sacred, like the long underwear, and ought to be similarly concealed. The Browns seems to see it a bit differently. If my dad had tried this as one of his get-rich-quick schemes, I don't think I'd be able to handle it. I had no trouble keeping it secret because it was embarrassing to me. I wonder how many of the kids feel embarrassed about their dad being a polygamist.; December 8, 2011 11:10 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: How do teenagers deal with the restrictions in AUB or fundamentalist communities? The Brown kids don't seem typical. They have lots of exposure to the outside now in Vegas. While in Utah, they must have been more sequestered. __________________________ I don't envy them. They obviously don't have much to grab onto. I have to wonder what they're thinking when their dad claims that polygamy isn't necessary for them, but until they're 18 they have to put up with his dalliances in things he won't even purport to recommend to his kids. If it doesn't matter to God whether or not Kody's children go into polygamy, why is it so important to Kody? That's a question that would be kicking around in my mind in that situation. "Still, with so many needy children around and so little parent time, do the adolescents have secrets and experiments that aren't publicly revealed? All teenagers do. How do they guard themselves or do they at all?" _________________________ If they're anything like I was, and I get the impression that some are, they are keeping a lot of secrets from their parents. They don't seem to like the publicity they're getting. I would have loathed it. What was your experience? To you think that today, with all the social media and technology, that kids have more outlets for their doubts and concerns? _________________________ Yes, they definitely do. If I'd had this kind of information at my fingertips when I was a teenager, it would have made it a lot easier to talk to people who could understand. I didn't know anyone who could take the time to hear everything I had to say. That's why I love the resources we have today, like blogs. I have so much information to share and I want to know what people don't understand very well so that I can explain it better. To me, that's a big part of staying on the cutting edge of philosophy.; December 8, 2011 11:19 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: "Troy, it's interesting you stay in Utah. Thoughts?" ______________________ I had serious plans of trying to get into NYU or Harvard, but lately I've put less emphasis on where I actually go to get my PhD. Getting it here would be perfectly fine and this is where I can help a lot of people who come into contact with polygamy. Here at the University of Utah I have access to students who are studying to become leaders in the next generation. I want them to get a clear picture of what is going on because this hits really close to home here. I don't have any plans to leave. They have big problems here and that's the kind of work I look for. If they fixed all of these problems, I'd probably get bored here and move away! I'd love to spend some time studying abroad, however. I'd like to try teaching philosophy somewhere like France or India.; December 8, 2011 11:32 PM
Seechelle said...: Bargain Babe I will try to find a more appropriate spot to put it in as to not take Cosmo's area off topic...or perhaps email it and let the ones in charge decide if they want to put it up somewhere. I'd like to share it because I think most just tell the door visiting mormons no but this went on for about 6 months (and included many lessons, invitations, etc. I believe they were convinced we would end up joining)so it was an interesting experience.; December 8, 2011 11:37 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Seechelle, You asked about the differences and relationships between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and these other groups who practice polgyamy, who we collectively refer to as "Mormon fundamentalists." The large LDS Church that sends out tens of thousands of young missionaries is who I'm referring to if I use the term "LDS." If they have split away from the LDS Church over doctrinal issues like polygamy, they are typically excommunicated from the large church and become "Mormon fundamentalists." The doctrinal divisions are not just about polygamy, they include other doctrines that were abandoned as the LDS Church grew. The LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) abandoned polygamy officially in 1890. In truth, it took decades to separate all of the polygamists from the official church. The LDS Church routinely excommunicates members who take an interest in doctrines like polygamy. As I mentioned, there are other doctrines that separate Mormon fundamentalists from the LDS. One very controversial difference arose in June, 1978, when leaders of the LDS Church announced that they would no longer withhold priesthood authority from worthy black males (specifically of African descent). Mormon fundamentalists saw this as heresy and apparently a lot of doubting LDS members did as well, since many people converted from the LDS Church into Mormon fundamentalism after this 1978 decision. Nearly all of the people who convert to Mormon fundamentalism were once LDS members, like my own parents. They converted to Mormon fundamentalism in 1973. My dad married a second wife the following year. A good question for Mormon fundamentalists would be, if Martin Luther King were alive today and wanted to convert to Mormon fundamentalism, and he was worthy in every respect, would you put your hands on his head and confer the holy Melchizedek upon him? That's a show stopper.; December 8, 2011 11:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Why would the Brown family plan to build 4 houses next to each other? Wouldn't it make more financial sense to build 1 large house with perhaps 4 wings and a large common living area? This would allow the kids to spend more time with Kody and other moms. Thoughts?; December 9, 2011 1:07 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Sinister Sister said... Q "How many marriages has your father had, and how many siblings do you have?" ____________________ My father married four women polygamously. My mother was the first wife and I'm one of the oldest. She had nine children. The second wife had six children, all with my dad. The third wife had three children from a previous marriage and later two more with my dad. The fourth wife, who came along after I'd left, had eight children from another polygamous marriage. I never got to know any of them. With all of the step-siblings, that adds up to 28 children. Q: "How can your sisters remain in the AUB and not practice polygamy? (or anyone)." ____________________ You've got me. They are trying to do the right thing and they don't know very much about the world outside Mormon fundamentalism. But I don't think they're in a hurry to share their husbands. Q: "Is there a time limit on how long you may remain a 2 person couple?" ____________________ Technically no, but couples who remain monogamous don't gain full trust with the leaders. They don't have as much at stake as the firmly-planted polygamous families who have the added burden of legitimizing their children in open society in the event that they decide to leave. That's no small thing.; December 9, 2011 1:36 AM
plot said...: Thank-you so much Troy. Great insights.; December 9, 2011 1:41 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Chantelle said: "One of the questions I have is what Jeffs is planning to do once this purge is completed. At that point, he (or his lieutenants or to whomever he gives power) will be surrounded by all devoted followers. This is especially true if he forces everyone to move to Texas or some other central location. So what is he going to do with his people once he's purged out everyone who doesn't follow him? Where's he going with this plan?" ______________________ These "purges" have never been anything more than acts to eliminate rival males so that Jeffs can get more control over his victims. If anyone gets between Jeffs and his intended victims, they are going to get purged. His sexual abuse is so profound and toxic it affects everyone he comes into contact with. In the end, he's nothing more than a child molester with an extremely sophisticated way of snaring victims.; December 9, 2011 2:02 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: "Why would the Brown family plan to build 4 houses next to each other? Wouldn't it make more financial sense to build 1 large house with perhaps 4 wings and a large common living area? This would allow the kids to spend more time with Kody and other moms. Thoughts?" _______________________ The more communal the situation, the more demanding it is on people in ways beyond financial. Ordinarily, each polygamous wife wants as much territory to herself as possible. The women in these families almost always yearn for their own place, separate from the other wives. And about the kids spending time with Kody and the other wives, that would not have been my concern. I did everything I could to MINIMIZE my time around my dad and the other wives. I don't expect that Kody's unhappy teenagers are looking to spend more time with the other family members. Kids tend to clump around their own mothers in these families. I never saw the other women as motherly figures. In my life, they were intruders who took things that had always belonged to others. Back then, it took everything I had just to keep from being hostile toward them and their children. And I didn't always succeed at that.; December 9, 2011 2:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Troy, you really touch on something for me. The way the children are treated by the other wives in plural marriages. I have experienced this in my life. My father’s first wife hated me. To her I was literally the face of all her misery. She did everything she could to destroy me and almost succeeded. I was eight when my parents quit that lifestyle and her influence in my life ended. I understand today why she treated me the way she did. She was in no less pain herself. My own mother told us that we were smarter and better looking than first wife’s children. We were lucky that we spent very little time all stuffed into one house. Today over 30 years later, all of my dad’s children from both wives keep in touch and don’t carry on the resentments towards each other that our mothers did.; December 9, 2011 4:53 AM
Sister Martyrs said...: I was just reading some letters posted on www.exmormon.org. Many of the people contributing on that website have done significant historical research to reach their point of departure from the Church. My question is this, it seems that historically speaking, Smith presented "the principle" of polygamy as something that was revealed to him by commandment and his imposition of the "commandment" on others was something that they supposedly accepted only by "commandment." For instance, there is a quote from Heber C. Kimball's Wife, Vilate, in which she recollects Smith's demand upon her husband that he essentially give her to Smith as his wife. She says that this command on her husband Heber was "a startling test-a sacrifice which shook his very being and challenged his faith to the ultimate." My question is this: If polygamy was originally presented in part as a test of self-sacrifice (I'm not buying that on Smith's part, obviously), how can people like Kody actually taut that he is "sacrificing" when he is always smiling like a 12-year old boy in pubescent excitement for time with each of his wives? More succinctly, where does the self-sacrifice come in doctrinally for the men that are only BENEFITING from polygamy? And more importantly, in your experience do the men participating in polygamy actually believe this "principle" or are they aware that they are taking advantage of brainwashing and being opportunistic about the "commandment"?; December 9, 2011 7:50 AM
skibbins said...: My questions are: Have Kody and his wives officially left the ranks of the AUB? How about his father and wives? As an active, practicing member of the LDS Church, I always find the outside perspective interesting, especially when we get lumped under the same doctrinal umbrella as the fundamentalist groups. If everyone were to put their faith under a microscope, historically speaking, they would find lots of distasteful items that would give them pause about being a member. My Congregational ancestors (I am an LDS convert) in Connecticut were using hot pokers to bore holes in the tongues of Quakers in the mid-1600s. There is no question that the LDS Church had some growing pains (to put it mildly) in the 1800s, but I can follow the counsel of the current prophet and all the teachings that are espoused today and be comfortable with it. There is a book that was just published, "LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference," by BYU and Deseret Book that is very comprehensive about what we believe today.; December 9, 2011 8:54 AM
Muffin Top said...: QUESTION: What do you think of the Darger's hiding the facts? If you are going to write a biography, it is a lie if you don't clarify- at least say, like you have, I won't discuss that, or something to that nature. QUESTION: Why hide it?; December 9, 2011 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: if anyone is interested in learning what the LDS missionaries won't tell you (chances are great they do not know this info themselves) then go to mormonthink.com. it explains everything very well the hidden history of the Joseph Smith and what the LDS church has evolved to. also another great source of info is Richard Packham's "what the mormon missionaries don't tell you." http://www.angelfire.com/ut/rstevenson/packhamtract.html Troy - are you familiar with any of this regarding mainstream LDS?; December 9, 2011 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Troy - here's the whole shebang history in a nutshell w/the mormons and blacks. scroll down halfway to find out the facts re: "revelation" to accept blacks into the priesthood in 1978. all about the $$ apparently. just like it was also about the the $$ and statehood when the plyg "manifesto of 1890" came about. http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm; December 9, 2011 2:22 PM
Religulous said...: Skibbins said: "If everyone were to put their faith under a microscope, historically speaking, they would find lots of distasteful items that would give them pause about being a member" I wish to respond to this in 2 points: 1) Why is the fact that other churches and religions have their own crimes and skeletons in the closet used as a measure of quality and morality of another church? That's like a teenager being reprimanded smoking a cigarette saying "well at least I'm not doing drugs". It's really a non-argument. It doesn't solve the problem. 2) As a relatively new religion, not even 200 years old, and with relatively small number of adherents in terms of the world population (16 m is really a drop in the ocean) the number of splinter groups is quite staggering. It doesn't matter that the official LDS doesn't recognize these groups as Mormons, the fact is, THEY consider themselves to be Mormons, they follow Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is a sacred text to them, too. Also staggering because of the youth of this religion and small number is all the crimes, cover ups, effort and money poured into trying to find archeological and genetic and linguistic proof of things stated in the Book of Mormon, not to mention all those LDS TV commercials (the "lady doth protest too much" kind) trying to show the world how normal and christian Mormons are, with a kind of damage control P.R. feel to them. Why is that? (rhetorical question) YES, all major religions have committed horrible crimes throughout history: I should know: I was born and raised a Roman Catholic. But, just taking the Roman Catholic religion as an example, compare all the heinous crimes committed by the church and divide that by the number of Roman Catholics in the world, and do the same for the Mormon religion and you come up with very different statistics. And when you add the fringe Mormon fundamentalists to the group, well you can understand why people view people like the Browns and the Dargers with suspicion. No one had to dig really deep to find them connected either by marriage or actual relatives to some kind of crime committed either by their church or their family members. So in a way, even though they might personally be very nice people, they are guilty by association. Yes, for sure, there are paedophile priests in the Roman Catholic Church and it's a huge problem that is being dealt with, and any time the church tries to keep things hush hush, its members force the issue back out into the open. But as someone coming from a R.C. family ( I am now an agnostic, but that is the faith-culture I grew up in), there is no one in my family who is or was a peadophile, none of the priests in my parish were, and I don't personally know of anyone who had been abused. (Of course, there still could be, I may just not know about it.) My point is, though, if TLC were to do a reality show about a R.C. family, they could find one not connected in any way to any scandals. The Browns and the Dargers, however, as the public faces of non-flds polygamy, who, one might assume, were picked / were willing to go public because they are the presentable, good-looking ones with no scandals, and yet, again, the smell of something not quite right follows them around. And where there's smoke, there's fire. So that's why people are suspicious of Mormonism and its splinter groups even if they know a lot about the religion.; December 9, 2011 3:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Religulous... i agree. Isn't this the same reason we're not impressed when Kody and Kompany all want to keep focusing on "at least we're not like the Warren Jeff's FLDS!!" no, duh! like everyone thinks everything is black/white like they're trying to paint the picture of polygamy to be. "If you're not FLDS plygs, then obviously YOUR brand of polygamy is GREAT!!"; December 9, 2011 4:43 PM
plot said...: I think another difference in the Roman Catholic church is that it has very few secrets anymore. One is able to discuss any aspect of Catholicism with any of its members, at this point (not always.) The LDS sets itself up as a mysterious organization with secret hierarchies. For someone like me, that makes it all the more intriguing. If one of my Southern fried preachers says that Mormons aren't Xtian, I want to know why he thinks that. The LDS doesn't give clear answers in response, so I go digging. This isn't the day and age to maintain secrets and lies. If the LDS can't acknowledge it's connection to polygamy, the Mountain Meadow Massacre, pyramid schemes and concerted campaigns against "feminism" or for Prop 8, then people like me are going to want more information that is becoming easily available. With Mitt Romney trying to be our president, the curious are digging even deeper.; December 9, 2011 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: plot - fyi, if you're really interested in learning more... mormonthink.com is not an official LDS church website but is written incognito by some active, practicing church members. They give the real unvarnished history (that the members DO NOT get) and then they also give the LDS apologist's spin. Then you decide for yourself what you believe sounds more true. The apologist's spin rarely makes any sense in trying to make it all work in spite of documented facts. Anyway, this group on mormonthink.com (made up of about 25 anonymous church members) feels it's important that their own members know the truth but they hide because they could be ex-communicated and it would cause alot of problems w/their spouses - even divorce. ;'/ Even at that, they take a lot of flack from some staunch members cause they don't want to believe anything but what the LDS church has deemed to let them know. Most members will just send you to lds.org which is the official church website w/the whitewashed history.; December 9, 2011 5:36 PM
Religulous said...: Mormonism is kind of difficult to put in a category: it shares a lot of elements with Christianity, but also differences and unique beliefs that differ so much that it's its own religion apart from Christianity, IMO. Just like how Christianity was at first a Jewish sect and though it still shares a lot of beliefs and sacred texts, it is vastly different. Same with Islam.; December 9, 2011 5:40 PM
#notcool said...: This is an ASK TROY corner, and space is limited. DO NOT START talking amongst or ask others questions on here, or I fear they will take it off and not waste Troy's time. Be more respectful.; December 9, 2011 5:43 PM
Religulous said...: I also want to add that for a religion that proposes to "restore original the true Church", or, as I understand it, go back to the basic teachings of Jesus Christ, (which is basically what every single other Christian sect since the Reformation set out to do), they seemed to have made it into a pretty darn complicated religion. They've added a whole other book! None of the other christian sects did.; December 9, 2011 5:45 PM
religulous said...: my apologies :-(; December 9, 2011 5:55 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: "My question is this: If polygamy was originally presented in part as a test of self-sacrifice (I'm not buying that on Smith's part, obviously), how can people like Kody actually taut that he is "sacrificing" when he is always smiling like a 12-year old boy in pubescent excitement for time with each of his wives?" _______________________ It only makes sense if you understand that it's all just BS. Polygamy serves no religious purpose. It has never been anything else besides a tool by which to claim privileges. Polyamorists will squawk when they read this, but they are doing something that affects society quite differently from the mandatory polygynists. I do not conflate their way of life with that of standard polygyny. I think they'd be better served if they followed this example. "More succinctly, where does the self-sacrifice come in doctrinally for the men that are only BENEFITING from polygamy?" _______________________ Typically, these men constantly complain about all of the pressure they're under, just trying to keep a polygamous family together. Don't buy into that nonsense. The only pressure they put themselves under is because they won't obey laws that are intended to protect people. That's not a sacrifice and I'll be damned if I'm ever going to praise someone for producing a large polygamous family. "And more importantly, in your experience do the men participating in polygamy actually believe this "principle" or are they aware that they are taking advantage of brainwashing and being opportunistic about the "commandment"?" _______________________ I think self-deception and rationalization are hard at work here. But there's no escaping the fact that polygamy sets up men for material benefits while depriving women of the same. And I don't consider it morally-praiseworthy to have a large number of children. Anyone can do that. If Kody's responsibility is to keep everyone happy and stable in their efforts to practice polygamy, he certainly hasn't indicated that he takes that responsibility seriously.; December 9, 2011 5:59 PM
April said...: Seriously, giving him places to learn about Fundamental Mormon? bwahahahahahha TROY QUESTION: Why do the Dargers feel the need to hide this information? If writing a biography, or being a star for that matter, don't you feel little things get blown up when found out later? Are they AUB?; December 9, 2011 6:00 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: "My questions are: Have Kody and his wives officially left the ranks of the AUB? How about his father and wives?" _______________________ I doubt they have actually left the authority of the AUB. But people like Kody Brown are as common as flies in polygamy. It seems that just about every man wants to be a prophet, so they fight against the very thing that has "authorized" their way of life. When men leave groups like the AUB and go off on their own like this, there's no consistency in their doctrines. Still, this doesn't stop them from fooling a lot of people and making even more of them unhappy and distrustful. "As an active, practicing member of the LDS Church, I always find the outside perspective interesting, especially when we get lumped under the same doctrinal umbrella as the fundamentalist groups. If everyone were to put their faith under a microscope, historically speaking, they would find lots of distasteful items that would give them pause about being a member. My Congregational ancestors (I am an LDS convert) in Connecticut were using hot pokers to bore holes in the tongues of Quakers in the mid-1600s." _______________________ Human beings have made a lot of mistakes in the past. If we regard past behaviors as unsuitable for life today, we're only falling into the trap of moral relativism. I will never stop condemning systems that enable human rights abuses, past and present. I don't just have to accept the way things were in past times. When I realized the immoral behavior that was rampant in my family's religion, I ended my acceptance of that religion. If religion isn't bringing out the best in people, stay away from it. It's poison. "There is no question that the LDS Church had some growing pains (to put it mildly) in the 1800s, but I can follow the counsel of the current prophet and all the teachings that are espoused today and be comfortable with it." ______________________ Not me. If they're not being honest and open about the mistakes of the past, they're not going to get a pass from me. When it comes to morality, I am the sole authority in my life. If I don't like someone else's ideas, I'll go find something better. "There is a book that was just published, "LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference," by BYU and Deseret Book that is very comprehensive about what we believe today." _____________________ I appreciate your remarks and open-mindedness, but if what LDS members "believe today" is different from what they've believed in the past, they have no logical consistency. I am a staunch moral universalist. If it is immoral now, it was always immoral and worthy of condemnation. Actions taken in the name of morality had better be consistent, otherwise there's no possibility to safeguard against abuses. Religion should be free from abuse and violence, like this one: http://cosmophilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/12/some-of-my-personal-religious-views.html; December 9, 2011 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: My links i gave and asked Troy about were about a couple of unauthorized MAINSTREAM LDS websites and not the Fundies. ;') My questions still remain the same for you, Troy. Are you familiar with those non-church sanctioned sites? If so, do you agree with their stated facts? Also, you touched on the reason for the 1978 policy change re:blacks. Do you agree with what mormonthink.com says how that really came about? THANKS!; December 9, 2011 6:24 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: QUESTION: "What do you think of the Darger's hiding the facts?" _______________________ Personally, it drives me insane. There is no place for the twisted truth in any of this. This is a moral problem. We need to know the unvarnished truth. The fact that they twisted the truth in a piece of purported non-fiction is a very serious matter. If I did that, my career would come to a quick end. I don't write anything unless I'm prepared for people to research my claims critically. The truth will come out in the end, no matter how much people try to suppress it. "If you are going to write a biography, it is a lie if you don't clarify- at least say, like you have, I won't discuss that, or something to that nature." _______________________ Indeed. A biography is supposed to be non-fiction. The worst thing a writer can do is lie to the audience, even if it's just a twisted truth. "QUESTION: Why hide it?" ______________________ Because of the shame involved. If they'd mentioned Dennis Matthews by name in that book, the scandalous critique would have been immediate. They chose to tell their story by omitting an important detail. I intend to treat them just as I would treat any scholar who tried to pull a stunt like this. Now I'm on a quest to see what else they have concealed. They've already lied to my face in public.; December 9, 2011 6:33 PM
skibbins said...: Just curious, I still have the question out there if Kody and wives have left the AUB and also their parents. Anybody know? And, Religulous, I can show you plenty of so-called normal LDS families without digging at all. I personally don't know any fundamentalists, so you have me there. Your two point analysis is interesting, but flawed, in my opinion, because of the number of variables involved with comparing RC and LDS. Still respect your right to voice it. One other point, I have had run-ins with Mr. Packham before. He is predisposed to see nothing but the negative in the LDS Church. He was part of an effort by my son-in-laws' parents to have to rescue their son from the evil Mormon church after he married my daughter. You can find his mother's anti-Mormon stuff around on the Internet. This has nothing to do with polygamy, I just would not trust Packham to recommend a good brand of toothpaste. I don't know anything about mormonthink. Guess I can only tell you what I think! There are a few other active LDS people on this blog, aren't there?; December 9, 2011 6:40 PM
skibbins said...: Whoops! Looks like you posted an answer to my question right after I restated it. I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I also read all your other comments and I respect how you feel.; December 9, 2011 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Troy, i know we have breifly discussed this before and if this needs to go to your, or our blog please let me know but can you share your opinions on non religious based polygamists (not polamorous) and if the distinct differences are enough to maybe move us out of the shadow that seems to cover this? As I have stated before I am not looking to repeal laws or anything of that nature (due to the issues inherant with religous poly) but to maybe be allowed to have some benefits spread to us that "mainstream" marriages have NTH; December 9, 2011 6:49 PM
Witchy Woman said...: Troy, How would fundamentalist Mormons deal with people like my husband and I, me a Wiccan and he an Asatru? We tend to keep our religious beliefs private now as in the past we have not had positive interactions with fundamentalists of any of the Abrahamic faiths who knew of our religious affiliations. I always thought that was interesting as the Asatruar have a very strict moral code.; December 9, 2011 6:50 PM
GagMe said...: Troy Q: according to the post on the Darger's, someone found that Dennis Matthews married the dtr. of Ormond Lavery. Do you know if this is her? Did they fail to mention this part too? Q Are you related to Fawn Sullivan, or Marck- Robyn's sister? THANKS!; December 9, 2011 7:01 PM
What a Maroon! said...: In my internet research, I found a summary of a book that stated Dennis married one of Ormond Lavery's daughters. Do you know the names of his children? Is Valerie one of them?; December 9, 2011 7:05 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: From what I can tell, mormonthink.org is just pushing the usual apologetic line. For instance, they choose to quote Gordon B. Hinckley about the prohibition of black men having the priesthood. Here's how he answered: "It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history." ________________________ Personally, I'd be incensed if someone answered my question that way. I will decide what little flecks of history are meaningful to me. This is such a patronizing response. Anything to avoid answering the question directly. I'm accustomed to it. That's why I became a philosopher. I abhor practices like this that avoid discussing the truth. It's clear from my decades of research and experience that the attitude behind this prohibition was purely racist. In fact, the evidence of this is staggering. I also don't take anyone seriously when they try to tell me what some historical figure ACTUALLY meant to say when I can read the quotes myself. Again, very patronizing. I'm having a hard time finding acceptable academic standards of truth on mormonthink.org. I don't need to accept their interpretation of history. I'm a professional. I can interpret history myself. If you have to depend on the authority of someone else to explain some third person's thoughts, don't try to get me to take it seriously. Unless there's good evidence and sound reasoning, I'm not going to buy it. Anyone can invent historical fictions. I found a similar line of reasoning about the Golden Plates. Critics of Mormonism have long pointed out that a collection of gold plates of those stated dimensions would have been too heavy to carry while running through the woods and fighting off detractors. But I knew I was dealing with amateurs when they responded to this by saying that the plates may not have been "pure" gold. Fine. Fool's gold? Does that make the doubt go away? Rationalizing like this in an effort to make apologetic excuses just goes against everything I've ever known about discovering wisdom. That's why the Book of Mormon disparages philosophers.; December 9, 2011 7:13 PM
What a Maroon! said...: http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/index.html How honest is this site in terms of correct information?; December 9, 2011 7:18 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: I've looked over what he says on that website, and he's just trying to get people to accept his version of an impossibility over the others. He makes a lot of spectacular assumptions without batting an eye, but he won't believe anyone else's outlandish tales. But both sides are asking others to believe the impossible.; December 9, 2011 7:28 PM
What a Maroon! said...: Interesting. Thank you for the insight!!; December 9, 2011 7:32 PM
skibbins said...: Do you know if Brian David Mitchell,the scum weenie who kidnapped and raped Elizabeth Smart, was part of any organized group or was he just freelancing polygamy? Did her kidnapping have any significant impact on the awareness of child abuse in this so-called lifestyle?; December 9, 2011 8:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Troy - you keep saying mormonthink.org vs. mormonthink.com (which is the site I was asking about.) again, mormonthink.COM gives BOTH the real unvarnished history in factual statements BUT then also gives the apologists statements of their spin on the actual factual info given. In other words, mormonthink.com is NOT an apologist site for the LDS church. THey are just giving BOTH sides on their site for you alone to make the decision. Their whole point is to say, "here's the truth that you don't get from the church itself. NOW here's also the church's paid apologist's spin on that factual truth if and when you as a member ever learn about it." THE two sites that are TRUE straight across the board apologist sites for the church are FAIR and FARMS as well as lds.org - the official site. hope i've clarified it better now. if not, no worries. i've read enough on there that i know what i think about it all and it ain't pretty. I was just interested in knowing if you were aware of that site and your thoughts as well as Richard Packham's. great info there, too.; December 9, 2011 8:42 PM
What a Maroon! said...: @Cosmo 6:33 - "Because of the shame involved. If they'd mentioned Dennis Matthews by name in that book, the scandalous critique would have been immediate. They chose to tell their story by omitting an important detail. I intend to treat them just as I would treat any scholar who tried to pull a stunt like this. Now I'm on a quest to see what else they have concealed. They've already lied to my face in public. " I wholeheartedly agree with your statements regarding their "non-fiction" not truly being honest and forthright. I welcome your "quest" to learn what else they have concealed as I feel it needs to see the light of day. Why write a book of non-fiction, and then be dishonest in its presentation. Thank you and good luck!; December 9, 2011 10:23 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Someone asked earlier, yes, I've known Richard Packham for quite a few years now. I've spoken at the ExMormon conferences they have annually. I used to write on exmormon.org quite a bit too, and that place was interesting.; December 10, 2011 12:08 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: There are a lot of questions about various websites and what I think of them. I'm just not going to get into that. If I need to cite another source, I'll do it, but I'm not going to endorse or critique a website from a link. I just don't have the time for that. If you need me to cite any of my own sources, I can do that, but I have to be very careful about who I cite and how I use the information. In philosophy, it's the argument that has authority, if it's worthy, examining actual evidence will come at a different step and in a different process. But before we can even interpret evidence truthfully, we have to have some logical principles by which to abide. I only use citations as a reference to help explain situations. This is different from what scientists or historians do, which is to analyze and document evidence and argue their case based on observation of things seen, heard etc. In other words, empirical data. Ethics calls for a different approach, however, and premises are usually strong enough to stand on their own without calling in empirical evidence, which would be a logical mistake. For example, I don't have to show evidence to prove that stealing is wrong; but I need evidence to prove that stealing has occurred. The business of morality is to make rational, reasonable decisions about what to do, all things considered. Stealing is wrong in principle. Whether someone has committed theft is the process of examining and interpreting the evidence, starting from hypothesis and moving to theory after evidence has been collected. I'm sorry if that's a brain-load all at once. The point is that there's a difference between purely-scientific and purely-ethical reasoning. The first depends on analyzing and understanding how the world is as we experience it. The second depends on principles we call "a priori." In English, this roughly translates to "prior to the experience." An "a priori" truth is something we understand and accept "prior" to experiencing actual events. To really see the distinction, think of arithmetic. As long as we understand certain basic principles and why they are true, we can go from 2 + 2 to phenomenal provable arguments. If the evidence is questionable, we have to re-examine. But if the arithmetic is questionable, looking at evidence won't reveal the problem. One has to do some figuring. This is getting too heavy for this blog, but I have interesting things on my own blog where I go into this. What I'm really getting at is that understanding the principles of how all of this works allows me to make arguments that are based on things we all accept as long as we at least agree to be fair and avoid causing harm. Those are some rock-bottom moral responsibilities we all accept. When we don't, we can foresee the trouble. We can understand things like this without having to point at something in nature to prove it. That's why it's just irrational to deny that polygamy in a population of roughly 49 men to 51 women is not going to work out mathematically if you want to give everyone equal opportunity.; December 10, 2011 1:28 AM
Terrasola said...: Thank you for that response Troy; I don't think it's "too heavy" at all. In fact, I think your info is helpful for the folks frequenting this blog who've been taught NOT to think and reason for themselves and to blindly follow the teachings and directions of others (e.g. Mormon fundamentalists). They need to learn to reason for themselves and to understand the true nature of morality and ethics if there is to be hope for them.; December 10, 2011 9:51 AM
Anonymous said...: "People like Kody Brown are as common as flies in polygamy." Best summation line so far, Troy! lol; December 10, 2011 11:16 AM
Anonymous said...: Troy - so true about the number irrationality. Like when you asked that question of he Dargers and their response was, "well, not everyone is going to practice it." or some such nonsense "rational" answer. Like you want her to understand, "well, there's ALREADY people who DO want to practice it tho but are seen as competition by the old men and are KICKED OUT of the community w/little more than the clothes on their back.!! they're called The Lost Boys, Dargers!" Why would God make a commandment of his people that causes such cruelty when it's not mathematically possible? Why wouldn't God make the numbers work now after 200 years of commanding it? Why does the main Mormon Church turn a blind eye to this malady right in their own state and not help? Flora Jessop shows her heartfelt letter begging for help rom them in her book and all she got back from the main Mormon Church hierarchy was a form, rote answer that they don't help private organizations. WTH???? They know they started this in Utah and NOW they won't help those in need and hurting from it? Thank God for people like Doris Hanson and others who are not Mormon in that state that ARE doing their best on limited funds to help these people when they cry out for it.; December 10, 2011 11:37 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: The LDS Church has long had the practice of not acknowledging the existence of Mormon fundamentalism. Even Gordon B. Hinckley once declared that "There are no Mormon fundamentalists." Actually, there are tens of thousands of people who call themselves "Mormon fundamentalists." Shall we ask them to stop using that term to describe themselves in order to make the prophet correct? NOTE: There is a difference between "FLDS" and "Mormon fundamentalist." The latter term includes all of the groups and independents. The former is just the name of the largest faction.; December 10, 2011 4:43 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: I knew Ormond Lavery, but I didn't know any of his kids very well. Also, I left in 1984 when I was 17, so the Dargers were all pretty young. I'm older than Joe and the others.; December 10, 2011 5:19 PM
Anonymous said...: Troy - glad to hear you know Richard Packham personally and have spoken w/him at exmormon conventions. I take it from that you do give him credibility for his knowledge of his past religion - mainstream Mormonism. I've also been to that exmormon website and WHOA! - there's a lot of pissed ex-mormons for being lied to about their history and the real Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as well as their church's finances. it's actually sad but i'm glad they're out of it all now.; December 10, 2011 5:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Didn't you say you're 45, Troy? Darger looks at least that old. ;'); December 10, 2011 5:25 PM
Anonymous said...: i found an article that says Joe Darger was only 20 when he married his first two wives in 1990. so, i guess that makes him 41 now. I think he and his 3 wives all look to be in their mid to late 40's. maybe polygamy just ages you faster. not to mention having so many kids.; December 10, 2011 5:40 PM
skibbins said...: Yow, I must be in the wrong place. When I started posting on Sister Wives a couple of days ago I was told there was room for everybody, but I am getting a strong anti-Mormon thread here. My reasons for participating were to find out more about the splinter groups that practice polygamy. Since I am a convert who grew up on the east coast I have no frame of reference at all. I am not afraid of controversy, but I have had some experience with one of the so-called authorities being quoted here (not Troy, he is doing a great job), which was, to say the least, less than positive. This forum is about polygamy, not my family, so I will leave it at that. Wishing everybody well!; December 10, 2011 6:38 PM
KattyKat said...: I agree, Troy. This isn't my religion, however, since reading up on it here, I do have an opinion on the subject.I feel that the Fundamental Mormons actually are closer to Joseph Smiths' teachings. Why shouldn't they be allowed to call themselves Mormon also? I don't quite understand what the LDS church is upset about.; December 10, 2011 6:57 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: I just put something on my blog about subjectivity vs. objectivity. We often use these words, but what do we really mean by them? http://cosmophilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/12/subjective-vs-objective-whats-that-all.html; December 10, 2011 8:05 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: The whole point of Mormon fundamentalism is to strictly adhere to the early practices established by J. Smith and B. Young. So they're definitely closer to Smith's teachings. It was when the larger LDS Church deviated from the early teachings that Mormon fundamentalism began to develop. The split began with the death of Young and continued through the time of John Taylor, who warned against it. Then the fractures began in 1890 with the Manifesto.; December 10, 2011 9:06 PM
~The Bargain Babe said...: Troy---we just celebrated Christmas with my side of the family and I got "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop. I'm excited to read it. :); December 11, 2011 11:21 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Excellent! After you read that, you can read a little more about Merril Jessop in this book. I just wrote a review for it: http://cosmophilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/12/my-review-of-prophets-prey-by-sam.html; December 11, 2011 11:28 AM
What a Maroon! said...: Recently received an email regarding the Dargers from John Llewellyn. Found it most interesting - Would like to hear Troy's opinion if he gets an opportunity to watch the program. YEAH for DVR. Email - "Yes, she was a plural wife and left him with three others. On Jan 12th I will be on Doris Hansen's tv show, What Love Is This, reviewing the book, Love Times Three, at which time I will give details of her marriage to Dennis. I will also be posing on my blog my review on that same date. Thanks for checking out my blog. If you have any question feel free to email me. John"; December 12, 2011 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Question: Not on mormonism as a whole or polygamy, but do you have an opinion on the current political race and whether someone's religion plays a role in that? Political correctness is causing some to skirt away from the topic of religion, but shouldn't someone's belief system be a part of how one is expected to make decisions?; December 12, 2011 8:14 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Here's an essay that I just wrote about polygamy and religious liberty. http://cosmophilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/12/opposition-to-polygamy-is-not-simply.html; December 12, 2011 9:49 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: I'm looking forward to John's appearance on Doris's show. I have to leave it up to people like him to do good investigative work. I don't have the time or the resources for that. So my colleagues and I have a great working relationship. We all specialize in one way or another. Good questions about the political race and how religion is involved. I'm concerned when candidates make a big issue of their religion because it makes me wonder how well they accept anyone else's religion. I get warning signs from candidates who won't leave religion out of the debate. In order to be president, one needs to be neutral in order to be fair. Private religious beliefs are an ordinary part of human life, but in the public sphere, we can't favor anyone's private preferences. The Constitution expressly forbids this. I'm not as concerned about a candidate's actual private beliefs as much as how well he/she can keep the public realm separate from the private. I suppose it makes a difference if a candidate's religious beliefs are just wacky, but that's not particularly unusual. It's when they try to make their views suitable for the public in general that they're out of line. In this country, everyone has a choice. Everything I ever learn about a candidate is fair game when I make my decision at the voting booth. I'm not under a Constitutional obligation to disregard someone's religious beliefs if they're wearing them on their sleeve. Anyone is eligible to run, provided they satisfy the Constitutional requirements. That doesn't make just anyone worthy of my vote.; December 13, 2011 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Troy, I was reading about Canada heading down to to texas and they recently, have upheld the ban on polygamy. If they find evidence down there in texas of human trafficing accross the boarder? Is that going to be huge and harder to ignore? Does Canada take a harder stance on polgamy than the states? or do they tend to sweep it under the rug too?; December 13, 2011 6:56 PM
GagMe said...: Dear Troy, Q: What do you think will happen with the Brown VS Utah case?; December 13, 2011 8:15 PM
Mustang Sally said...: Q: If the AUB are unhappy with the Browns, why don't they throw them out? Q: It appears to me the AUB is a bunch of uneducated preachers preaching what little they know about the bible, PLUS, what they are told to preach from the AUB. Now, given this, it seems as though the AUB is no more than a "club" you pay dues to. They do not go to church regularly, or in any real fashion like a normal group; To me it's like the Masons or Kiwanis; pay to be in the club!! Am I right or totally wrong.; December 13, 2011 9:45 PM
Old Lady said...: Dear Troy Do you feel the AUB is more a organised club rather than a church? What I mean is, as long as you pay your dues, your in good standing! They don't have preachers that are educated, they don't care if you go to church or not-OBVIOUSLY. If they did, they would be building churches all over. It's like the Kiwanis- pay your dues, your cool for another year. Speaking of that - it is terrifying to me that their preachers do not have any formal training, never studied in a bible college, never had to think outside of the box.; December 13, 2011 10:05 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Up until recently, Canada took a hands-off attitude. But they've learned that they can't just ignore polygamy. They have problems with Muslim polygamy too, which often shows the same kinds of abuse. Canada has recently decided that they are going to prosecute offenders and they have no intention of hiding anything. The community of Bountiful, B.C. has been a staging point for trafficking of underage brides for many years. Prosecutors have been reluctant to go after polygamists because they've feared that polygamy may be a protected religious right. But the recent supreme court decision in British Columbia says otherwise.; December 13, 2011 10:55 PM
Shoofly said...: Hi! I have a AUB question. QUESTION: Why are they so intent on having their own schools if they don't even have regular church services? Seems like indoctrination of the children, more so than say, a Catholic school. Not to get in a few church related classes, but to brainwash and control them.; December 13, 2011 11:19 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: It's hard to say what's going to happen in the Brown case against Utah. I get the feeling that a lot of Utah politicians would like to decriminalize polygamy and I think Shurtleff would rather do that than actually arrest someone for it. Orrin Hatch has only praised polygamists whenever he's mentioned them. He's admitted to being friends with insiders like the late Fred Jessop, who has literally held girls hostage for trying to avoid marriage. In 2003, my colleagues and I were trying to assist Ruby Jessop, who had tried to escape an arranged marriage to her first cousin. Ruby was 14 years old. Fred Jessop held her hostage and forced her into this arrangement. We struggled to get the Utah authorities to do something and the Washington County Attorney, Eric Ludlow, ignored us. He later became a judge. My colleagues and I challenged Orrin Hatch in the Salt Lake Tribune, to go into Hildale and consult with his friend, Fred Jessop, about Ruby's being held hostage and forced into an arranged marriage. Hatch ignored us and simply stopped discussing polygamy in public. Ruby Jessop had two children by the time she was 17. The Brown case is a bit of a joke because Utah is the safest place in the country for polygamists. Just getting law enforcement around here to take an interest in Warren Jeffs was a monumental feat. And in the end they couldn't even put the guy in prison. Texas had to do that. In groups like the AUB, paranoia runs rampant. Polygamists routinely exaggerate their risks with law enforcement. And it's frustrating to see people like the Dargers go on national TV and whine about their fear of going to prison. What's going to happen if Mitt Romney gets elected? Can we count on him to address the problem? I doubt it. Mitt's own grandfather was a polygamist who had fled to Mexico to evade the law. The AUB does not purport to be a church. They speak of themselves as a priesthood organization, temporarily separated from the body of the LDS Church. The way they see it, the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy right now, but many fundamentalists still regard it as the proper one-and-only-true church. They see the LDS Church as performing a role of lesser importance to the role of the priesthood authority, but still having a function with regard to baptism for the dead and missionary work. What scares me about the untrained clergy is that none of them have any training whatsoever in ethics. But isn't that the point of being a religious authority figure? Aren't they supposed to be the ones who are wise about doing what's right? All the leaders I knew when I was growing up had nothing but contempt for philosophical reasoning. To them, morality is a matter of obeying without question. To me, that sort of morality is more fitting for livestock. The members must pay their dues, however disorganized all of this really is. Right now the AUB is squeezing cash out of their members to offset a huge fine that was slapped on their leaders after their involvement in the theft of 1.5 million dollars. On paper, they operate more like a financial entity than a church. Excommunication is quite different in a group like the AUB, where they take you off the roles when you stop showing up.; December 14, 2011 12:58 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Oh, they do have regular meetings, but they just aren't like an ordinary church. They have their own schools because they believe their kids will be corrupted in public school. More than that, it keeps public attention away from them since their kids aren't being seen daily by "gentiles." It's a way of enabling their abuse and keeping it hidden, while they control what the kids are exposed to.; December 14, 2011 2:20 AM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Warren Jeffs was the principal for Alta Academy, which was an FLDS school. The abuse stories that come from his tenure there are nightmarish. There's no telling how many kids he molested in that position.; December 14, 2011 3:29 AM
Religulous said...: Question: though the different polygamous groups like the AUB, FLDS, the Harmston group, the Kingston group, etc etc have banded together under Principle Voices to help the polygamy cause, how do these different groups ACTUALLY feel about the other? Do they view each other as say different Protestant groups do, or are they suspicious of each other? Second question: if tithing is such an important part of the Mormon religion and it's offshoot sects, what happens to the so called independents like the Dargers, who pray at home and don't go to any "church"?; December 14, 2011 11:30 AM
Anonymous said...: Or better yet...How do the Jessops in one group consider the Jessops in the other group?; December 14, 2011 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Troy, I am British and live in the UK where Mormonism, fundamental or otherwise, is almost unheard of. Via certain circumstances, I have become aware of and fascinated by the fundamentalist cultures in the USA that practice polygamy. From what I can gather, these polygamous cultures thrive in only a couple of states in America. Where I live there is a huge diversity of ethnicity and religion. People from all over the world have settled here for generations and practice their religion in established communities, whether they are Muslim, Sikh or Hindu etc. Yet, these fundamental polygamous groups seem chained by their faith to Utah! It’s not like polygamy is even legal there anyway! Plenty of other religions were established in one particular country but have spread to other places as believers of those faiths have moved. I’m curious as to why members of these polygamous faiths don’t seem to move states or even countries and bring their faith with them, like other people do? Also, unlike many other mainstream religions, members of these faiths don’t appear interested in ‘converting’ non- believers to their way of life. I even recall one episode of Sister Wives where Robyn specifically said that their religion does not advocate them going out and ‘proselytising’ and that their church is exceptionally difficult to find. This has me just baffled! How do these fundamental groups rationalise a faith that promises ‘salvation’ to such a small fraction of the global population? For them, does the world really stop with America, or failing that, Utah? Do they really believe in a God that made the whole universe and everyone in it...but who only wants a few thousand polygamous Mormons from Utah in the highest level of Heaven with him? In their eyes, are the rest of us in the functioning western world, where no one has ever thought to introduce polygamy, simply damned to Hell? And if polygamous marriage is really the ultimate existence for all, then why do they think God only thought to mention it to Joseph Smith 100 years ago? You’d have thought that a reasonable God would have had the common sense to let people know they were missing out on something fairly major during the 3000 odd years between polygamy in the Old Testament and the origins of Mormonism? Many thanks in advance. Your intelligent and well-informed insight is exactly the kind of contribution that this debate requires.; December 14, 2011 7:20 PM
~The Bargain Babe said...: ^^good questions. would love to have seen "Rev" Turmininio ask THOSE of the Browns.; December 15, 2011 11:46 AM
Rubber Tree Plant said...: Yes, Anon 7:20; well said. I am really interested to read Troy's comments re: your thoughts.; December 15, 2011 1:00 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Anon 7:20, what you're discussing goes right to the heart of an important issue. Polygamy is exclusionary. It is impossible for everyone to practice it. If follows then that one of the benefits to being elite in society is the ability to enter this exclusionary practice. Whenever I get the chance to talk to Mormon fundamentalists, I ask them questions that point to this problem. Predictably, they start dodging the question. But they even have doctrine that holds them to be elite among the world and privileged to be "chosen" to practice the "most holy principle." If we're to take them seriously, then the rest of the world is doomed and they will inherit everything after we all perish. That's what I was raised to believe in that society and I'd love to see one of them admit that the real reason they don't care that the numbers don't add up with polygamy is because they literally expect vast numbers of widows to be left behind by soldiers fighting in world wars. This has been a standard answer when I've asked how they account for the fact that so many men will be unable to fulfill this "divine commandment." When one peels back the layers of secrecy with these groups, one can see the hypocrisy in their appeals for tolerance. Some of them will admit frankly that they're sort of "gearing up" for the future, when polygamy will again be "necessary" to ensure that every woman has the honor to be married to one of them. About "exclusionary" religious practices, the West is famous for that. It's the attitude that "you're either with us or you're against us." This attitude is just backward in Eastern religion, which is typically "inclusionary." I've written about this a bit on my blog: http://cosmophilosophy.blogspot.com/2011/12/some-of-my-personal-religious-views.html; December 15, 2011 11:44 PM
Terrasola said...: Cosmo, You touched on this in your response above. What do Mormon fundamentalists REALLY think about us gentiles? Also, could you explain the concept of blood atonement? Is it real or hype? Thank you so much for taking time from your busy schedule to share your knowledge with us. The truth is important. Also, have a great holiday season.; December 17, 2011 7:21 AM
Loco said...: Terrasola, good question. Are we sharks, Troy? (did you see that episode?- you really should watch them) Troy, what do you think the Brown's are getting investigated for? I am betting it is not welfare, etc. What could it be?; December 17, 2011 10:02 PM
Old Lady said...: Q - Were any of your ancestors before your parents polygamists? Q - How many wives did your father have children with? Just curious to the background without any mention of names-; December 18, 2011 6:04 AM
shoofly said...: Q - Did you all have readers like the one on the main page? What grade level?; December 18, 2011 6:31 AM
~The Bargain Babe said...: Troy, I finished "Escape"!! My mind is still wheeling from all of that information. Question for you and you may or many not know the answer. Carolyn Jessop is the author of the book. Robyn was married to David Preston Jessop previously. Any relation?; December 20, 2011 12:49 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: What do Mormon fundamentalists REALLY think about us gentiles? _________________________ What I was raised to believe was that people who rejected the "fullness" of the gospel would be destroyed in the latter days. There may be a few exceptions, but they have a very armageddonist attitude about the future. I asked about the problem of excess males in polygamous society once and I was told that in the latter days, there will be terrible world wars that will wipe out most of the men in the world. This, they reason, will make polygamy necessary. Whe I was growing up, I was accustomed to hearing such things about "gentiles." As a child, I felt a lot of fear about outsiders. I thought we were going to be arrested at any time and taken away. We also stored a lot of food for hard times that never came. I felt a lot of different emotions about outsiders, that ranged from fear to curiosity to embarrassment. Also, could you explain the concept of blood atonement? Is it real or hype? _________________________ It's real and it depends on how isolated the communities are from the outside. Some Mormon fundamentalists take it literally, like the Lebarons. In 1977, Ervil Lebaron sent two of his wives to Utah to murder Rulon Allred. This was a blood atonement killing and there were several other murders committed by his followers. In that society, it's definitely real. I take it seriously when we hear leaders talking about Blood Atonement. Brigham Young introduced the doctrine of Blood Atonement in 1857. He claimed that there were certain sins that were so grievous that the atonement of Jesus Christ was not enough to save them. These sinners needed to actually have their blood spilled on the earth before they could atone for their sins, which included apostasy more often than anything else. According to the doctrine, apostates needed their blood atoned this way. 1857 was a year that Young got his followers into a frenzy about blood atonement and in September of that year, the Mountain Meadows Massacre took place. Blood atonement was real for a lot of people in 1857 and somewhat thereafter.; December 20, 2011 10:38 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: Troy, what do you think the Brown's are getting investigated for? I am betting it is not welfare, etc. What could it be? ________________________ I can only guess that it has something to do with all of their bankruptcies. I just don't know.; December 20, 2011 10:41 PM
Cosmo Philosophy said...: "Were any of your ancestors before your parents polygamists?" _____________________ I only know of one specifically. My gg-grandfather on my mother's side emigrated from Sweden and had at least two wive. But I don't know of any others. "How many wives did your father have children with?" ______________________ He had children with the first three. His fourth wife brought eight children from a previous polygamous marriage. He never had children with her and that marriage didn't last very long. "Just curious to the background without any mention of names-" ______________________ No problem. I'll answer as many questions as I can. If it gets too personal I won't get into it.

Sister Wives Blog

Thursday, December 1, 2011

cosmo archive updated 12/20/11

Cosmo's Corner

No comments: