The Texas FLDS Situation

Posted on April 15, 2008
Filed Under Politics, Religion |

I’ve not talked about the FLDS situation here since I want to focus on philosophy here. For those interested I’ve made a few posts on the subject at M*. The first was on the double standard between the polygamy and underage marriages of African immigrants and the FLDS. The second was noting that there was a lot of prima facie evidence that the FLDS were doing what Texas claimed. (This was in opposition to a series of posts at Messenger and Advocate that was outraged at what they perceived to be civil rights violations by the Texas authorities) If the FLDS were engaging in systematic rape then I strongly feel the State has to do something.

Now I’m not sure the Texas strategy was wise simply because it may make future prosecutions and rescue of abused young women difficult. However I just don’t see the purported civil right abuses. Now it may be that as more facts come out we’ll find that Texas authorities misbehaved. If so then go after them. I just don’t see it yet.

(Please don’t comment on the FLDS situation here - go to either M&A or M*)

Now I will say that I’m quite bothered by some of the press coverage - especially foreign - which tends to treat the FLDS as if they were LDS. They aren’t and even if you found 19th century LDS polygamy disturbing one should note that it was quite unlike FLDS. For one LDS had quite liberal divorce laws. Amazingly liberal when you consider the view of the rest of America at the time. Second the LDS were quite progressive on such things as women’s suffrage. Utah women were the second to get the vote long before it became common in the rest of the United States. (Wyoming barely beat out Utah) Interestingly Congress denied women the right to vote in Utah as part of their efforts to rid the territory of polygamy. It wasn’t restored until 1895 when Utah was granted statehood.

Something else I only recently learned, Jews ended polygamy in American only in 1869. That’s only a bit more than a decade earlier than LDS ended it. Of course there was still the issue of Ashkenazic from the middle east immigrating to the United States. (Most Jews in Europe were Ashkenazic Jews who ended polygamy between the 11th and 14th centuries whereas most American Jews were Sephardic.) See this interesting blog post on Jewish polygamy.

BCC also had up a very informative post on sectarian polygamy.

Anyway, just a plea not to confuse Mormons with the FLDS who have been doing some pretty horrible things.

Comments

21 Responses to “The Texas FLDS Situation”

“Anyway, just a plea not to confuse Mormons with the FLDS who have been doing some pretty horrible things.”

The FLDS are simply practicing the doctrine as clearly laid out in D&C 132, which remains canonized scripture for the LDS as well.

One practices the doctrine in this life; the other looks forward to practicing it in the next.

No they aren’t. There is nothing in D&C 132 about forced marriages, child abuse or the like. Quite the opposite.

3 Michael Dorfman on April 16th, 2008 8:56 am

Clark, I think you might be a bit too trusting toward your informants. I, for one, would love to see a citation for a statement like “[M]ost U.S. Jews as late as the first decade of the 20th century still believed that polygamy was legitimate, and legal and binding.”

Click on the link. It comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. The issue of how common it was is a fair one. But then it wasn’t exactly typical among 19th century Mormons either. (Many of my Mormon ancestors don’t appear to have been polygamous)

The main difference is due to European Jews (mainly Ashkenazic Jews) versus those from the middle east (mainly Sephardic ones) As you may know in Israel there have been some social issues over the decades due to the differing traditions as they are integrated into what is primarily a secular state run by European Jews. Those practicing polygamy were primarily from Iran, Yemen and a few other places and, as I understand it Israel which bans polygamy made exceptions. However there is among the ultra-orthodox there a movement to keep it. Do a quick google search and you can actually find ultra-orthodox polygamous dating sites. Which I find more than a little creepy.

To me the biggest problem is fundamentalism in general whether Jewish, Islamic, Mormon, Protestant or Catholic. (And I’m sure there’s similar problems in the East) There’s a certain creepy mindset to it all I must confess. Maybe that’s just reflecting my own biases. But it seems to lack a certain humility and open itself up to what I’d call the totalitarian urge.

5 Michael Dorfman on April 17th, 2008 4:43 am

I did click on the Jewish Encyclopedia link, Clark, and that shows that the Reform conference in 1869 proscribed polygamy, which I don’t dispute. The claim made by the By Comment Consent blog went quite a bit further, though, and claimed that “[M]ost U.S. Jews as late as the first decade of the 20th century still believed that polygamy was legitimate, and legal and binding.” I don’t doubt that there may have been a few Jews who still believed that polygamy was legitimate in 1910– but most? That’s crazy talk.

Ah. OK. I misunderstood. That’s a good question. I’ll ask Ben where he came up with that. But I do suspect it was the Jewish Encyclopedia (which was published from 1901 - 1906) and this line:

Still, with the majority of Jews, this is not even an open question, and the marriage of a married man is considered just as valid as that of an unmarried man;

Clark:

You state:

“The issue of how common it [plural marriage] was is a fair one. But then it wasn’t exactly typical among 19th century Mormons either. (Many of my Mormon ancestors don’t appear to have been polygamous.)”

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and ldsfaqs.byu.edu (I’d link it, but don’t know how to here) states:

“The exact percentage of Latter-day Saints who participated in the practice is not known, but studies suggest a maximum of from 20% to 25% of LDS adults were members of polygamous households. At its height, plural marriage probably involved only a third of the women reaching marriageable age—though among Church leadership plural marriage was the norm for a time.”

You also claim:

“To me the biggest problem is fundamentalism in general whether Jewish, Islamic, Mormon, Protestant or Catholic. (And I’m sure there’s similar problems in the East) There’s a certain creepy mindset to it all I must confess.”

But, I wonder, do you see the mind set of the early LDS fathers as being fundamentalist? Does their mindset seem “creepy” to you? I’m sure you are aware that it does to many outsiders. As many see it, the early LDS fathers’ behavior seems to resemble what is going on in Texas.

For instance, take Joseph Smith marriage to Helen Mar Kimball. From what I understand, Helen was only 14 when Smith proposed to her. Moreover, he pressured her into the marriage by saying “If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father’s household and all of your kindred” (Ostling, _Mormon America_ 62).

We also know that President John Taylor advocated plural marriage in defiance of the law and went into hiding himself when Federal agents pursued him. Indeed, it is to him that the so-called FLDS appeal to in support of their doctrine — even claiming that he gave secret revelation while in hiding.

And, thus, to many outsiders, the FLDS polygamous practices look very similar to early Mormon polygamous practices.

With all this said, let me add this: These comments are not made in order to antagonize in any way. Rather, they are made to ask the question of how you feel about the actions of the early LDS fathers. Do they also give you a feeling of uneasiness? Or have you reconciled yourself with them? Do you endorse their actions or condemn them or, perhaps, neither? Do you wish the Utah LDS church would be more open in their discussion about the topic — perhaps by letting scholars examine some the important documents on the topic in the archives? In

Respectfully,
Aurelius

The “creepiness” of fundamentalism doesn’t stem from the past per se, but from how the past is used to justify misbehavior in the present.

Aurelius, your first point is just repeating mine. Was that what you were intending? (I couldn’t tell from tone) The practice lasted only about 40 years and at its peak less than 1/4th practiced. (This ignores the large number of members in England at the time which for a period outnumbered those in Utah) The actual number varies from county to county.

Regarding 19th century marriage, as I noted, social practices in the early 19th century simply were different than today. If you check out the FAIR site they have some interesting statistics from the 1850 census in that regard.

Clark:

My first point was not to disagree with you or merely repeat what you said. Rather it was statistical. And, if accurate, it corroborates your point that plural marriage — even in Utah — among the laity was not typical. However, it also challenges your statement in that it was typical of the leadership. The point being that typicality is relative to the reference group. And it seems that plural marriage was the norm among the group that really matters, namely, the leaders.

As for the “social practices” response: can this be used to justify slavery or stoning idol worshipers or any immoral act that happened in the past that was perhaps accepted by some group of people? Does giving statistics on how many people used to own slaves or stone idolaters and/or list the famous people that did either in the past justify slavery or stoning? Of course the answer is, No! And thus the “social practices” argument is fallacious.

But ever more, if the “social practices” argument were sound, could not the FLDS claim that their social practices are not in step with “mainstream” America and, thus, they cannot be held to their standards? In their society it’s normal to marry a 14 year old girl to 26 year old man (or older) and even pressure her into to it by claiming that it’s God’s will and that if she will not do it then “the Lord thy God will destroy her” and perhaps her family too.

You cannot really accept the social practice argument, can you?

Jack:

What makes pressuring 14 year old girls to marry misbehavior now, but acceptable then? Why not say it was immoral in both cases, but that God worked with it to bring about his plan? Why feel the need to justify it at all?

Recently, Paul Copan has written an article about OT ethic in which he does not try to justify the practice of stoning adulterers and such by Israel. But rather he recognizes that such behavior is immoral, yet God nevertheless chose to work with those people and slowlym lead them out of their immoral ways . God used, to speak Buddhistically, skillful means. He met the people where they were at morally and gradually lead them to the moral high ground, which culminated in Christ. Why can’t this approach be used in this case?

Aurelius,

I suppose that approach may make some sense theoretically. But then, in no time, you’re gonna run up against something like the sacrifice of Isaac, which doesn’t make sense–if we’re talking about God working with people where they’re at.

Modern squeamishness about the past has a way of distorting history.

Jack:

Why can’t the story of Abraham and Isaac be among other things a story of moral education? That is, why can’t we view it as God commanding something he knows to be immoral to someone he knew would do it b/c of their moral ignorance/confusion (e.g., social practice) in order to teach them that it is indeed immoral? This seems entirely plausible and fitting with the story. One might object, however, saying that in context the story seems to be about the testing of Abraham’s faith and obedience. This is true. But the two account are not mutually exclusive. The story can be about both.

Aurelius, while it is definitely true most of the LDS leadership in the key 40 year period were polygamous there certainly were key figures who weren’t. (Consider for instance Porter Rockwell who was monogamous) I don’t believe I ever claimed it wasn’t normative for leadership. Since they felt it was commanded it would be quite odd for them to not be following it.

What is different about FLDS isn’t that they practice polygamy (which I think most people couldn’t care less about honestly) but rather that they are so strict about not letting people out of it. Likewise social views in the 20th century about youth have changed. Appropriately so. To ignore those issues is, I feel, wrong. We don’t judge young marriages in the 1840’s the same as we do today. (Or even how we judge the abundance of youthful marriages in the 1950’s) Likewise we don’t view racial issues the same. We recognize that people are part of their culture. So, for instance, I don’t disparage FLDS who are socialized from a young age to believe young marriage is appropriate. However the FLDS should recognize that they have to follow the laws in this regard. Just as African immigrants should follow the same laws. (Since that has been noted as a problem by both the Washington Post and the New York Times - from reading the stories probably a worse situation)

The problem here is that it appears that the FLDS had no intention of following the laws.

Now one could argue that, like John Taylor, they feel the laws are unconstitutional and that it is appropriate to engage in civil disobedience when polygamy was made a felony in 1882. (Note - only 12 years before LDS stopped the practice) The law was only judged constitutional in 1890 (after Taylor’s death) and up to that point most Mormons thought it would be judged unconstitutional.

The situation in Texas is interesting, especially since it now appears the original call was a crank call and that there is no evidence of child abuse. The child protective services woman, Angie Voss, appears to be making some incredibly weak arguments. If the judge sustains them then I’d suspect that there will be a constitutional challenge for sure. In this day of changes since 19th century views of jurisprudence I can’t see how either of the anti-polygamy bills of the 19th century could be deemed constitutional. (Note that they don’t merely make polygamy illegal but make cohabitiation illegal)

To add, if the above wasn’t clear enough. I don’t think social practice justifies something. That is I think there is something approaching objectivity in what is right or wrong. However I also recognize that we don’t know that. Undoubtedly 100 years from now people will look at things you and I take for granted and judge them immoral.

So I think we have to distinguish between what is right or wrong from the epistemological question of whether someone in a particular context was justified in knowing they were right or wrong. Or, put simply, to separate questions of morality from questions of responsibility.

Clark:

You claim:

“What is different about FLDS isn’t that they practice polygamy (which I think most people couldn’t care less about honestly) but rather that they are so strict about not letting people out of it.”

This is a bit to general. I think many would argue that some of the early LDS fathers’ were very strict about not letting people out of plural marriage. To make their point, they might bring up Joseph Smith’s threat to Emma that if she will not cleave to him and accept plural marriage then “she shall be destroyed” by the Lord (D&C 132:54). Would you be critical of such claims given to women by the FLDS leaders today?

I think you are also overlooking the tactics used by some early LDS fathers to secure marriage. What would you say of an FLDS leader promising salvation to the young girl and her family if she would only marry him? I think many would be appalled (even in the 19th century) by such claims; for it seems to be an abuse of power to sway such a young mind in that way. Yet, this is the very way that Joseph Smith secured his marriage to Helen Mar Kimball.

You then state:

“We recognize that people are part of their culture. So, for instance, I don’t disparage FLDS who are socialized from a young age to believe young marriage is appropriate.”

I think this comment brings up a very important distinction in ethics, namely, the distinction b/t first-order moral questions and second-order moral questions. First-order moral questions are “about the permissibility or impermissibility of actions”; while second-order moral questions are about the “culpability or inculpability of agents” (Alan Donagan _The Theory of Morality_ 55). Thus, we need not disparage the FLDS or early LDS fathers when making moral claims about their practices.

For example, it may be that Smith really believed the Lord would destroy Emma if she did not stay with him. He may also have believed that Helen marrying him would secure her and her family’s salvation. Now, his believing these things, of course, does not make them morally permissible. But, it may make him non-culpable; for we could question his sanity. Thus, one need not look upon him disparagingly, but rather with compassion. I think the same case could also be made in the case of the FLDS.

Clark,

You state:

“Or, put simply, to separate questions of morality from questions of responsibility.”

You must have been reading my mind as I was typing my response.

A couple of problems with that reading. First, you have to acknowledge the spiritual reading of that. i.e. that destroyed talks to a future judgment in heaven. Second you have to acknowledge that Emma never accepted polygamy and that nothing even remotely happened to her.

Second you still don’t acknowledge the social differences in the 1840’s versus today. That is the epistemological issue I raised.

Your statement, “it may make him non-culpable; for we could question his sanity” is inappropriate. To say that moral decisions are context-sensitive is not to say that somehow someone is not being sane.

Put an other way. Today we know it is wrong to put try and cure disease by letting blood. If someone were to refuse medical care and go to a blood letter to be cured we’d say they were not acting rightly. But does it logically follow that someone in 1450 who went to a blood letter was either acting insanely or was consciously being wrong? Of course not.

So in your eagerness to disparage Smith you’re neglecting the very role social understanding and practice plays in meaning and justification.

Clark:

You state:

“A couple of problems with that reading. First, you have to acknowledge the spiritual reading of that. i.e. that destroyed talks to a future judgment in heaven.”

This is the way I was reading it. But, the question still remains, is it appropriate to take advantage of someone’s beliefs about the eternal to secure their company? I think many would look at as manipulation.

You further claim:

“Second you have to acknowledge that Emma never accepted polygamy and that nothing even remotely happened to her.”

Actually, Emma did accept it for awhile. In fact, she pick several of Smith wives for him; for example, Emily and Eliza Partridge (Ostling, _Mormon America_ 68).

You the state:

“So in your eagerness to disparage Smith you’re neglecting the very role social understanding and practice plays in meaning and justification.”

I am in no hurry to disparage Smith at all. I hold no such feelings toward him. And I don’t think I am neglecting the role of culture when it comes to moral justification. All I am claiming is that cultural acceptance of some act has nothing to do with whether it is morally permissible or impermissible. In fact, I think I stated pretty clearly that cultural context does affect culpability and non-culpability (i.e., moral justification).

Aurelius,

Re: Your comment #12–Morality can be kinda of a moving target when a living God enters the picture. It was right for Abraham to obey God–and therefore morally acceptable in that instance–regardless of how he felt about the cultural strictures of the day. The problem is that fundamentalists will justify their actions/beliefs on some “Abrahamic” principle totally bereft of it’s original context. And as such, said “principle” has no moral foundation because the target has moved–there’s no living God in the picture this time.

But, the question still remains, is it appropriate to take advantage of someone’s beliefs about the eternal to secure their company? I think many would look at as manipulation.

Except the way a Mormon would read D&C 132 is that Joseph isn’t the person speaking. So that raises the question if it was just for God to do it. And most theists would say that while we can’t always know why God does something if we are justified in believing God did it then we are justified in believing it was good.

Actually, Emma did accept it for awhile.

She gave grudging acceptance for a while and then turned against it. As I recall she then denied Joseph even practiced it. So by “never” I mean a kind of stable acceptance.

The point is that Emma ought establish a view of how folks can respond to polygamy.

All I am claiming is that cultural acceptance of some act has nothing to do with whether it is morally permissible or impermissible. In fact, I think I stated pretty clearly that cultural context does affect culpability and non-culpability (i.e., moral justification).

Then aren’t we agreed? I don’t see what is at issue. You’d agree that the cultural context in 1840 is quite different than 2008.

An interesting question in all this for those who get after Joseph Smith living before our modern knowledge. Most suggest, based upon the word “parthenos” in Matt 1:23 and the word “almah” in Isa. 7:14 that Mary would have been between 13-15.

Likewise the age of Joseph is unknown for sure but is often set to a fair bit older than Mary.

But even ignoring the age of Joseph what on earth are Christians to do with God getting a young woman pregnant?

(I’d made some more comments about that - but I think I’ll make them a separate post)

Leave a Reply