Video: Fox reporter tears up over polygamist story
posted at 10:30 am on April 16, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’ve received a couple of e-mails on this clip, which brings up many issues at once. A Fox News co-host begins to cry when one of the mothers from the FLDS compound describes how federal agents removed her handicapped 5-year-old son from the El Dorado site and refused to release him back to her, even after explaining the necessary care he needs. Take a look for yourself:
This reminds me a little of a critical subplot in Broadcast News, the 1980s movie about telejournalism and the slipping standards of reporting. William Hurt’s character cries during a broadcast, and later we find out that it wasn’t exactly an honest response. Even if this was entirely authentic, and there isn’t any reason to suspect it isn’t, is it really appropriate for a news presenter to weep on camera when hosting an interview?It isn’t just an academic question. The FLDS sect stands accused of some pretty heinous child-abuse crimes. If those charges are substantiated, then the women Fox interviewed are either complicit in those crimes or brainwashed by sect leaders. A little emotional distance would seem more appropriate than to act out in the manner shown here, which biases the presentation rather strongly in favor of the women. The show’s producers brief their hosts on the subjects that will arise in the interview, and someone at Fox should have determined whether the host should have been reassigned.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I am not LDS but I know when the government abuses its authority. Thankfully I know how to read. We should all be afraid when our government doesn’t follow the law. I use the example of Waco because the Feds totally abused their authority there. David Koresh could have been arrested any time, without incident. Again, lets learn from our mistakes and prosecute the people who violated the law when we have cause. It is time to hold this government in check before we have no rights.
Terri on April 16, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Since we’re on the subject of sexual perversion, let’s sum up:
In America today: you can have two mothers and children and be celebrated for it. Two fathers and children, and be celebrated for it. A pregnant male delivering a child and be celebrated for it. But it requires tanks to remove children from what (if we’re going to be honest) is probably the oldest aberrant religious tradition in America — Mormon polygamy, under the mere suspicion of sexual abuse.
It’s a brave new world.
Drum on April 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
It might be on the Fox News web site.
Terri on April 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
The same things the Constitution provides to everyone in every type of case…. presumption of innocence until proven guilty and due process.
I wonder if this would be happening if they were Muslims? I doubt it…. don’t you? The political correctness that surrounds this case stinks to high heaven.
Maxx on April 16, 2008 at 1:43 PM
As for pulling a Janet Reno on these folks or anybody else (like Elian Gonzalez…), I’m totally with you.
What I’m getting at though is this: should those who use something like polygamy to declare Mormons (or Mahometans) heretics also say that it was wrong for Abraham & Jacob to have four wives?
I’d be interested to hear what some of the other arbiters of the definition of Christianity here have to say (Apacalyps [sic], SaintOlaf, Chosen One): is it the case that 1) polygamy is evil and so should be condemned (verbally, of course) in all cases (Joseph Smith, Abraham, Mohammed), or 2) that Mormonism & Islam are bad on other fronts, but the polygamy is fine, because even the Father of Many Nations did it?
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Maxx, the presumption of innocence until guilty and due process only applies to governmental action. And it did happen in this case.
It doesn’t mean that other people can’t decide not to do business with the accused.
jim m on April 16, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Well said. There was no reason for a military-style raid of the FLDS compound that I’m aware of.
Enrique on April 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
I don’t know, man. I’m still trying to deal with the doctrine of Hell and eternal damnation!
Drum on April 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
But as for Abraham and the rightness or wrongness of Biblical polygamy, I’m not sure Christians see it as being right, so much as they see it as one of those bizarre (yet common) things that God tolerated for the sake of His greater purpose which was to bring salvation to the world via the Jews.
The doctrine of the creation calls for the joining together of one man and one woman who are not to be separated. Period. Anything beyond this is an aberration.
Drum on April 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Ha! Fair (and honest) enough!
We’ll just have to wait for the others, who are wiser than we. Hey Red Pill, when God’s done telling you about Saint Michael of Arkansas, could you ask him about King David of Israel?
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I know our friend Apocalypse is not a fan of what he calls “Wickedpedia”, but these little snippets on Jewish & Christian polygamy are interesting…
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I have a bit of a different take… while Gretchen’s words show her trying to build a relationship with these women by stating that she too has a 5 year old child, I think it’s within reason to guess that she’s tearing up over how brainwashed these women are. I saw this interview this morning, but you must know that they had at least 2 sets of 3 women on like this and the brainwashing and the “not that we’re aware of” answers to anything about underage marriage/sex was pretty disturbing, I imagine especially to a woman.
RightWinged on April 16, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Didn’t some ATF agents get killed when they attempted to simply serve a warrant in Waco? And you suspect Koresh would have submitted to arrest without incident? And this groups’ leader (Warren Jeffs) didn’t really submit willingly either.
I don’t claim to know anything about the allegations in this case but I’d guess the Feds were being overly cautious in their approach with Waco on their minds. How they resolve it from here will (hopefully) be the difference between this situation and Waco.
tbradshaw on April 16, 2008 at 2:29 PM
The entire episode, the existence of such in this day and age, the uniforms, the demeanor, all of it is disgusting to me, and similar to the status of other types of enslaved women. I can’t believe this is the century we’re in. Progress? I think we’re regressing, slowly but surely. It’s very sad.
The brainwashing is most disturbing.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I watched the whole interview this morning and Gretchen was just fine. Kilmeade provided more pointed questions.
This whole thing stinks of the Big G, waiting too long and then acting like stormtroopers. Elian Gonsalez x 416.
Randy
williars on April 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM
This is another Short Creek which was the original Colorado City.
I think Texas will end of looking silly in the eyes of the public. The folks never like to see kids separated from their mothers.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 2:43 PM
But in the USA we have freedom of religion.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Compound (kom´pound) (noun): A church, plywood shack, or a plywood church that the government and a few snake handlers don’t like to the point of persecution.
LevStrauss on April 16, 2008 at 2:48 PM
I agree that some emotional distance would have been more appropriate.
That said, it was a very troubling interview. I can’t help but feel these people are getting a raw deal. The way the child protection law works, reckless and malicious tipsters can unleash with impunity the total fury of the government by a single anonymous (and possibly groundless) phone call. Even with society’s high interest in child protection, laws like this are too susceptible of abuse, with consequences that are usually devastating. Under these laws, people are known to report others for purely malicious purposes. Children in my area are known to have reported their own parents just to ‘get even’ for an appropriate disciplinary action. I’ve heard parents say it makes being stern with rebellious children almost impossible.
petefrt on April 16, 2008 at 2:50 PM
And neither are these degenerates. Please be more responsible in your posting.
This group has been soundly and repeatedly disavowed and shunned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS – as you suggested above)
EJDolbow on April 16, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I am truly shocked that anyone here could possibly defend these child molesting,child abusing,child kidnapping mormons.
It truly blows my mind!
Even if I was a mormon and heard about this story…I would not defend these pedophiles….I would re-examine mormonism,realize it is fatally flawed,turn from it and beg God for forgiveness.
You have no excuse for defending these sick,twisted,child molesting cult leaders.
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Keep posting. As a non Christian you make my job that much easier.
LevStrauss on April 16, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Well said. PC requires us to be ‘nonjudgemental’ in a discriminating way.
When same sex marriage is legalized, I’m hoping for an early challenge on the Constitutionality of polygamy laws.
petefrt on April 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Picking Gretchen Carlson over Allison Camerata (Sp?) is probably the worst mistake Fox News made since hiring and re-hiring Whorealdo.
Carlson is the worst interviewer on TV and her chemistry with Brian and Peter Doocy’s father is non-existent.
EJDolbow on April 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I live in the city where the FLDS women and children are being held, and I have to say that I’m amazed at how delicately the authorities have been handling this. Their resources have been stretched to the limit, with the city spending over $60K a day to house them, yet they are definitely handling the situation with kid gloves.
I realize they haven’t been able to find the girl who called the hotline more than once, but it appears that the local authorities were aware that the sect might be harboring child molesters and abusers for some time prior to this.
Also, it has been an absolute nightmare for the authorities to try to determine who is related to who, or even what some of these children are named. It is going to take quite some time to get this all sorted out, so don’t be too hasty with judgment.
Remember: This is a nightmare for all involved. No one is going to be completely happy with the results of this.
pookysgirl on April 16, 2008 at 3:07 PM
What post was irresponsible? I urge caution. I want the people who violated the law prosecuted. I want the government to obey the law and follow the constitution.
Terri on April 16, 2008 at 3:12 PM
But the Catholic Church defended it for years. Anmy outrage on that?
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Especially when there is no probable cause that their mothers were abusing them. People forget that Freedom of Religion allows for practices other people might find weird. As for the polygamists and those sexually abusing children, why were they not arrested? If they had evidence of abuse/polygamy then they should have been arrested and taken from the compound – not the children.
Parents in this country have lost many of their freedoms – if the government (or someone in the government with the power) doesn’t like your parenting skills – they will try to take your kids away and claim neglect or abuse because you did or didn’t do what they thought you should do. If they finally force through a ban on spanking then they will have another nanny state wedge to separate you from your kids and put them in state custody. Wait until Socialized medicine gets here and they take away your kids for not doing what the doctor tells you to do. Neglect they will scream as they whisk your child to safety. Keep an eye on your government because they already have their eye on you.
Corsair on April 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Agreed.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:14 PM
What’s very interesting about this whole case is that Texas has made of point of letting the public know that they did not press any charges regarding polygamy. The state of fully aware of it and never did a thing.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Wiat, I need some clarifiactaion here – I know bigamy is a crime but is polygamy in certain states?
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Polygamy, at least in FLDS circles should be protected under the establishment clause. Of course the establishment clause has been perverted over the years to basically negate itself.
LevStrauss on April 16, 2008 at 3:25 PM
Wish I didn’t have to go back to work and could stick around and read all the pertinate comments (not the theological feuds). One thing I have wondered is why they didn’t round up all the adult men of the compound and uproot THEM instead of everyone else…I’m sure it would have been a much less traumatic arrangement for the women and children, who possibly have already been traumatized enough.
surrounded on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
It does not matter one bit that the mormon church shuns the fundamentalist mormon church. The point is mormons still do BELIEVE exactly what the FLDS believes.
The mormon church still BELIEVES in polygamy but supposedly does not practice it only because it is illegal.
That is why the mormons here are defending these child molesters.
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 3:28 PM
pertinant? Oh, whatever…
surrounded on April 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM
So according to your broad brush paint job Mitt Romney still BELIEVES in polygamy but supposedly does not practice it only because it is illegal?
Stop.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:44 PM
BTW, anyone know when Big Love starts it’s new season?
It’s one of my favorite shows. :)
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
None of you apologists here would be charitable towards Muslims, if they were the culprits in this case. So why are you defending the FLDS?
Listen, it doesn’t matter what religion they are. If they practice polygamy and child marriage, it is f***ing WRONG no matter what.
mram on April 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM
I have never spoken ill of Muslims here at all, unless warranted. I believe the whole BS of judging them all as Islamofacists is just that – Xenophobic BSin’ crap reserved for the Far Right loonery – which btw – is given a pass far too often as far as I am concerned.
Not all Muslims are bad just like not all jews are Shylocks and all Catholics are pedophiles, so don’t lump me into the Far Right Wingnuttery.
I am and have been the voice of dissent against that behavior here for a longtime and I have been verbally pistol whipped for it.
But I wear those verbal assault wounds with pride, baby.
Standing out and up against the xenophobic loons will only make you a stronger and a better person IMHO.
Too much Far Right and too much Far Left makes Uncle Sam an unhappy, unhealthy guy.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Hun ?
Maxx on April 16, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Then why didn’t they arrest the polygamists? And for your information – most, possibly all states allow child marriage – Texas law is 16 with parental permission – it used to be 14 until they changed the law a couple of years ago to target this group. So by allowing it Texas, you think all Texas lawmakers should be arrested for allowing child marriage? If people break the law – they need to be arrested and punished. Why punish the children for the sins of their fathers?
This is not defending the practices of the FLDS. This is standing up for their right to freedom of religion and their right to raise their children in their way – even if I disagree with them. The same goes for Islamic women who choose to wear a burqa, or the Amish for choosing to live without electricity. They have that right in this country. Arrest the evildoers not punish the innocent.
Corsair on April 16, 2008 at 4:26 PM
I like Gretchen! She is a lovely lady. If people feel she is wrong to have a human reaction to what is a very sad and confusing situation I have to disagree. This is normally a light hearted show with the serious news segments reported by someone else.
How fightening this must be for the young children. The women were very guarded and appeared programed in their responses. They voiced sadness,fear and frustration while their affect remained very flat.
Pat in NC on April 16, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Taking children away from their pedophiliac,child abusing, sick mormon parents is not a punishment…it is a reward and the right thing to do!
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Put. Down. The. Crack. Pipe. & Step. Away.
I’m in no way condoning any abuse conduct OR polygamy for any group…
First, these folks have NOTHING to do with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, calling them FLDS is like calling a calling a Lutheran or some other protestant a Catholic.
Second, The (real) LDS church doesn’t endorse, condone and will straight up 86′ someone over it. Dude, seriously – If they are guilty of abuse and bigamy, let them hang high (according to the same vitrol afforded to the Mormons by our kind and gracious government).
Once again, you always amaze me at your lack of knowledge about LDS beliefs but are first in line to smear…
SkinnerVic on April 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM
You are sounding shriller than usual.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 4:35 PM
If we as a nation allow the government to go into a compound based upon ONE alleged complaint and separate all children from their parents, claim brain washing, claim sexual abuse to children, and other allegations, then everybody in the United States is subject to this same treatment, especially those who choose to home school, install religious values in their children (brain washing), or any other pretext that the state can come up with to destroy the family!
I think the judge who issued the warrant should be disbarred and thrown in jail. The judge issued a warrant based on a hearsay complaint from a women’s shelter! There is no recording of the phone call. The caller did not call 911 which automatically generates and recording. Since this alleged girl cannot be found after searching the compound for five days, one can assume that the call is fictitious.
The amount of manpower and firepower that the authorities used is reminiscent of all totalitarian governments around the world. Think Pol Pot, Karl Marx, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and other mass murders and dictators who want total thought control over their country’s populace.
Some questions one may ask are:
Are there any 24 year old mothers at the compound with children 8-10 years old? If so, how old is their husband?
Any actual proof that 16 year olds were being force to marry 50 years olds?
Are there any pregnant 14, 15, 16, or 17 year olds?
The children have had medical examinations. How many of those examinations show evidence of abuse, either sexual or physical?
Is this raid reminiscent of the extermination order Governor Boggs issued in Missouri in 1838?
Question for all, When will the State of Texas issue extermination orders for the other sect/cult religions in Texas?
Sorry about reposting this, but I want SaintOaf to answer the questions.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Carlson pretty much makes Fox unwatchable- she lacks even the most basic news I.Q., and has the personality of a doorknob.
jjshaka on April 16, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I get pretty tired of newsreaders inflicting their own reactions to stories. It really does drive me nuts. Absolute impartiality is difficult, if not impossible, but newsreaders these days really do inject far too much of their own emotional responses when reading the news. It’s one of the reasons why watching the BBC or PBS doing the news is so much easier than watching CNN, MSNBC, or FOX… just the facts and then sane experts when required to illustrate both sides of an issue. None of the ‘really sad story coming up’ BS.
lexhamfox on April 16, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Excellent posts – some answers are needed indeed.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 5:04 PM
I guess the FLDS should move to Massachusetts or New Hampshire
Corsair on April 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Um, how are you going to have actual proof of these before you go into the compound and separately ask people since (i) they don’t talk to outsiders under threat of severe penalty; and (ii) they file incorrect information with the state (birth certificates, etc.)?
jim m on April 16, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Please provide proof of your assertions.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 5:32 PM
Continueing to evade aren’t you Skinner.
Are you telling me the mormons would not practice polygamy if it were legal?
Is this what you tell your converts?
You LIE to them and tell it’s peaches and cream and then after they believe you unload the real theology on them.
Oh I do know mormon theology..you put contradictory statements in your “holy” books and then your “prophets” tell the real theology.
All of this directly contradicts the Bible (and your book of mormon BTW)…then why do your “prophets” preach this?
It is the secret theology that you lie about and say doesn’t exist. Typical cult behavior.
Are you really going to say that mormonism does not condone polygamy for any other reason than it is illegal? That is another lie. “I don’t know about mormonism” but Christianity forbids lying.
This is why we had to stop Romeny even at the cost of Mccain.
This FLDS child abuse/molestation stuff would be happening all over America after Romeny legalized polygamy.
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 5:40 PM
If this has you so riled up, how will you deal with the Pope speaking in favor of illegal immigration while he’s here?
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 5:44 PM
BTW April,
Is this what you want…to be one of your husbands many wives?
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I had an Epiphany! The reason SaintOaf is so afraid of polygamy and afraid of its legalization is that any and all girls would prefer to be the second or subsequent wife with any other man rather than the only wife to SaintOaf!
I’m bad, and I shouldn’t denigrate those that have no logical reasoning ability or wit.
Hold head in shame.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM
What’s the matter with you April?
We also have laws against poligamy and child abuse. Is it ok with you to have sex with animals, or the dead, or whatever, in the name of religion? Please don’t even bother to start a conversation. It’s really disturbing to conclude more often, lately, that people can’t hold more than one thought in one head, concurrently. It’s really perturbing and sad.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM
1. Where is the proof of actual child abuse in this case. Lots of allegations and innuendo, but no actual proof.
2. There are also laws against sodomy, adultly, bestiality, etc. and yet, you can go on any internet search and find these activities going on all the time, right here in the good Ol USA. I am more accepting of polygamy than these activities.
3. What do you consider the greater child abuse?
Two moms.
Two Dads.
A girl living with her boyfriend, but not the child’s father who usually abuse them physically and sexually.
Divorced parents who fight and the custodial parent denigrate the non-custodial parent.
Having a step father/mother who only provide comfort and care to their natural children.
Public Schools.
or these children have both mothers and a father who love them and take care of them. (There is still no proof and any abuse as stated earlier.)
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM
forgot to add
Single mother with 2 or more children from different fathers living in poverty, on the state doll, with no food in the house and no immediate prospect for improvement.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
PrettyD_Vicious, if this is so legal, and accepted by you, unless you’re one of the cops who also proctice this, and let it be, how come they aren’t our everyday neighbors?
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM
S/b “practice this”, of course.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Also, PD_V, how do you know the children are loved, and not inbred imbecils, and malnourished, like several other reports had shown. How do you know the women are that happy? It’s easy for us to say “just run away”. It’s not that easy when threats are used against them. How do you know they entered those marriages volens? I have more questions, but you and I won’t solve it here.
And dude/dudette, I’m a libertarian, and don’t argue from a moral ’superiority’ or ‘inferiority’ standpoint, either.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Can either or you, or anyone else, explain why in America polygamy is illegal (historical) or why it should be illegal (moral)? I don’t ask this rhetorically.
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM
So, if you like watching Big Love, it means you want to join a polygamous relationship? If you watch The Sopranos, does it mean you want to join the mafia? If you watch Queer as Folk, does it mean you’re… (well, strike that last one). But if you like Six Feet Under, does it mean you want to become a mortician? I shudder to think what watching Sex in the City makes you!
Behold the thinking of a Huckabite!
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 6:56 PM
Entelechy
I can only do the same as everybody else here and read the news stories.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8941294
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351450,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24141460/
Some stories state this, some stories state that, therefore one must try to read between the lines. See my first post. I agree that we can’t solve the puzzle here with the limited FACTUAL information, but we also don’t need to lynch the FLDS members.
I don’t practice polygamy, one wife is more than enough. However, these FLDS members were producing goods that they were selling to the public thereby bring in income to the “commune.”
Furthermore, there was just one allegation. One allegation of sexual abuse is no reason to disrupt this community. They can’t even find the right “Sarah” if there ever was one. Remember, there was no 911 call. If one of the “Sarah’s” is in custody, then there should be evidence of such a beating and healed broken rib bones.
There are just too many holes in this blanket sweep of the FLDS compound to trust the state.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Can either or you, or anyone else, explain why in America polygamy is illegal (historical) or why it should be illegal (moral)? I don’t ask this rhetorically.
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 6:52 PM
I’m not arguing that it s/b, from any standpoint. I don’t make the laws, but we do have some that we like, and some we don’t, and we don’t get to pick which ones we obey, with the distinct exception of (illegal) immigration, which most all politicians don’t obey.
You, Tzetzes, yes, you, the intelligent one, try disobeying some you don’t like.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Plus, imagine the multiple mother-in-laws :)
I understand many of your points. For me the brainwashing, terror of fear, inbreeding, and primitivism is perturbing.
Again, I don’t argue from a moral standpoint. Y’all do your thing, and live with it.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 7:09 PM
It is Illegal because when this country was founded it included alot of laws based on Christian morals – other things that were against the law were sodomy, adultery, etc. They were written to protect the morality of the country. Of course over the years as morality declined, the laws were not enforced and eventually dropped due to political correctness. I am fairly sure that in the next couple of years we will decline to the point of allowing polygamy and other current outlawed practices. I don’t believe this will be because of the FLDS, but probably kowtowing to the Islamists that want the same thing.
Caveat – I haven’t studied the polygamy laws – I am assuming they came into being along with the others, but issue was moral to begin with.
Corsair on April 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Putting aside polygamy’s condonation (that being an ironically apt word in this case), are you actually going to condemn it? Will you condemn Abraham & Israel for having two wives each (plus two concubines), or David for having eight wives (plus concubines), or Solomon for having seven hundred wives (plus 300 concubines)? Will you really condemn the Father of Many Nations, whom you claim to believe to have been blessed by the Lord with Isaac while he was a polygamist?
I doubt it. You’ll condemn these freaky prairie-dress wearers if you can use such to smear your theological enemies, but you won’t be consistent in your condemnation.
I’m just glad you aren’t the one with the guns.
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Oh, believe you me, I have no intention of disobeying this one! Or, to your point, other ones, that I might actually object to. (And your point about the mothers-in-law is a good one!) But I honestly wonder what the objection to the practice is.
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Ok, olaf – they are not Mormons! (I am screaming at you) In fact they would be the 1st to tell you that they hate the Mormons – gee kind of like you. They are also human beings – they love their children and are horrified at what is happening to them, just like any other mother. I would hope that I would be horrified if this was happening to any group of people. We are importing muslims into our country with their 4 wives and their girls who if they disgrace the family by being raped or associating with white boys, they can be “honored” killed. But we are still importing them. The men have offered to leave the compound and let the women and children come back to their homes and let the investigation proceed. What if this was a female stolaf who made the call? Don’t you think someone like him would do it? Seems funny it happened about the time there was another announcement. Hmmmmm
Bambi on April 16, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Whoops “honour” killed.
Bambi on April 16, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Any interdiction against polygamy is going to come from outside the Bible (which for a great many Protestants is the only source for Christian thought).
But laws against Sodomy? Do we really want that?! (Also, Sodomy has often been taken to include more than male buggery, even as far as heterosexual oral sex. Tell me you don’t want to ban that!)
(By the way, Sodom’s sin is never mentioned in the Bible, the episode with the angels notwithstanding. In at least one rabbinical tradition it is not that practice to which the city has since given its name, but that of the Sodomites’ [in the literal sense of the term] turning away of the poor. For what it’s worth…)
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 7:29 PM
The girl in the middle looks about 17. I have no idea if she’s married or a mother, but looking at her blank expression made me sadder than the woman talking about losing her son.
Tanya on April 16, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Sodomy laws in most states were in effect (but not prosecuted) until very recently. Sodomy has historically meant male buggery, that’s the way the original sodomy laws were written and I will continue to use it that way for referencing those laws. I don’t debate the meaning of the word “is”. There are several places in the NT where the practice is condemned. On marriage Jesus taught (in principle) one man – one woman in his teachings on divorce. Paul taught more specifically one man/one woman. Including the qualifications of deacons and elders of the church. Just because it doesn’t say “Thou shalt not” doesn’t mean it wasn’t taught against.
I will continue later if you want more information, but I have to go to bible class right now for more indoctrination.
Later
Corsair on April 16, 2008 at 8:04 PM
Tzetzes,
Your arguments are of the most pathetic kind. You lie and distort Scripture…you continue to prove you have zero credibility on Scriptural issues.
Then again you probably know that but hope that you can dupe some uneducated people. It’s shameful.
Hagar was never a wife of Abraham nor did he have concubines.
Polygamy is never condoned in the Bible. Abraham did not have two wives. Fact.
Bambi,
It is also just as shameful to defend these child raping polygamous abusers.
It is unconscionable!
Yes FLDS are LDS. The only difference is the FLDS decided to practice polygamy even though it is illegal. Wheras LDS believe in polygamy but do not practice it because it is illegal. If polygamy was legalized FLDS and LDS would be the same cult.
Bambi do you really want to be one of your husband’s many many wives?
Bambi, you’ve been called by Christ.
Why not leave this obviously false “religion” and answer the call?
SaintOlaf on April 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Heh, funny you’d say that. I’ve been thinking the same thing.
But in Gretchen’s defense, I’ll say I’ve warmed up to her in the last few months. At first, I didn’t appreciate her at all. Alyson Camarata, on the other hand, has been quite impressive from day one.
petefrt on April 16, 2008 at 8:22 PM
St Olaf is the character in Stephen King’s The Mist who was played by Marsha Gay Harden.
She is HotAir’s Mrs. Carmody.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 8:44 PM
And I watched Sex In The City, I guess that makes me a promiscuous strumpet.
I watched the Sopranos I guess that makes me a Mafia wife.
I watched Will and Grace I guess that makes me crave the gay lifestyle.
I watch reruns of the Honeymooners, I guess that makes me a loud-mouthed Brooklyn bus driver who embraced every kind of get rich scheme imagnible.
I watch Bill O’Reilly, i guess that makes me an opinionated bloviating popenjay.
Jeez. The last time I checked we had a valid Bill of Rights in this country.
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 8:55 PM
These are children. You don’t know if the charges are true or not. You don’t know if the charges are true or not. (Yes I meant to repeat it – since you never get it). They still live in America and are presumed innocent.
Polygamy was practiced by very few of the overall LDS Church. Many women were left widowed when they were driven out of the east and on the trek across the country and were thankful to have some means of support and protection.
No they are not my ancestors, but if they were I would be very proud of that heritage. As I listen to people like you I’m not sure that the bigotry has not raised it’s head again.
But let’s not go on and on and on and on about it. I won’t change your mind and you can’t change mine.
Thanks, but no thanks, my husband says one is all he can handle.
Bambi on April 16, 2008 at 9:13 PM
1). From the Salt Lake City paper 2 days ago: “One current problem: there are 20 to 30 women who claim to be adults over age 18 but are not believed by the state.
“Some of these women are providing birth certificates and IDs and are being told they are lying,” said Criselda Paz from Legal Aid of North Texas.
“We have had extensive problems and complications with regard to the age of these women,” Dusek said, suggesting a special master be appointed to resove each case.
Stout said women and adults have changed the names they are giving officials, and younger children are being passed from adult to adult.
He suggested creating a medical file with photographs for each child, so children can be identified regardless of what name they give or who is providing their care.”
2). From courttv.com from Sept 1, 2006 (relating to the Arizona/Utah compound): “Anyone who talked to a “Gentile” — the FLDS term for anyone outside the church — risked eternal damnation and through the wrath of Warren Jeffs, the loss of his house and family.
Shortly after he arrived, Engels received a tip that a 16-year-old had been married to Warren Jeffs. He found her visiting her parents and asked her about the allegation.
I prefer not to answer, she replied to every question he asked. Her parents stood by, staring at him with a hatred that still burns a year later.
“I was the devil to them. To all of them,” he said. In the end, all he could do was tell them he would stop back periodically to check on her. “She better still be living here,” he told them.
His reception did not improve. Engels has the ramrod posture and authoritative air of one who has spent his career in law enforcement, but he has a gentle thoughtfulness that in the past had earned the respect of even those he had arrested. But in Short Creek, people acknowledged him only with dirty looks and comparisons to Satan.
jim m on April 16, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Paul speaks of celibate or monogamous clergy, but I don’t know of any mention of a restriction against polygamy, by him or by Jesus (and Augustine couldn’t find any either). It’s easy to assume, reading Jesus talk about marriage, that he meant our kind of marriage, but that is an assumption. Luther couldn’t find any compelling reason why Philip of Hesse shouldn’t take a second wife, while even the great Melanchthon said that Henry VIII could have avoided the nasty issue of divorcing Katherine of Aragon (forbidden except for adultry) by simply taking Anne Boleyn as simultaneous number two (allowed the patriarchs and nowhere forbidden).
(As for homosexuality, I think it’s forbidden of the Lord. But Caesar is not the Lord and should keep out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.)
* * *
But my question is this: even if one does think that polygamy is forbidden a Christian, what case against it can one make to a secular citizenry, to one’s fellow Americans at large?
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Yes and I bet children engaging in underage drinking in many churches every Sunday. Send in the Feds. Test it and see if that wine is blood or not.
LevStrauss on April 16, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I did make a stupid mistake: Hagar was indeed not a wife of Abraham’s, the same as Sarah. But you never answered: will you condemn Abraham for having her (or Keturah) as concubines? Will you condemn Jacob for having both Rachel & Leah as wives (plus two concubines)?
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Hahahahaha – brilliant!!
AprilOrit on April 16, 2008 at 10:28 PM
You strengthened my point about the multiple thoughts. I never claimed what you did. You own that one.
Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM
The LDS church doesn’t allow its members to practice it even where it is legal (e.g. Nigeria). We’re not chomping at the bit to reinstate the practice…least of all my wife.
Olaf, your shrieking ignorance of the LDS Church would be amusing if it weren’t so sad. You’re the Oliver Willis of religious discussion. You know religion like Margaret Cho knows funny. You are to religion what GWAR is to barbershop quartet. You are to religion what Randi Rhodes is to coquettery.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
sulla on April 16, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Tzetzes
There are many good arguments for or against polygamy. I’m not sure what the founding argument against polygamy was, but one can argue that statistically the population is about 50/50 with a little variation depending on location and time. That statistical figures allows marriage between one man and one woman. Unattached males have always been rather disruptive to societies. Therefore, the one man, one woman allows everyone in society to be married and have a family.
If society gets in a position that women greatly outnumber men, which happened during the Mormon migration across the West a lot of men died and more women converted to Mormonism, the one to one rule is usually disregarded or suspended so every eligible female has a husband. The reverse has happened in other countries when males have outnumbered females.
A more likely scenario when males outnumbered females, is armies are formed of mainly unattached males and they conquer other countries. An example would be Spain conquering what is now Mexico, California, etc. The Spanish men killed the Native American males and took the women as wives.
During the rein of David and Solomon, Israel was at war with many different countries. The Bible doesn’t specifically state the number of casualties that was occurring during this time frame, but one might assume that there were more women than men due to battle field deaths. Based upon David’s action and sin, I would assume the usual marriage was one man, one woman and David sinned greatly by taking Bathsheba, another man’s wife when he already had many.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
One might say the same thing about Hippy communes. The difference is they are teaching their kids the correct PC agenda. If it feels good, do it. Sex is great with anybody and everybody, we did it at Woodstock. Tobacco bad, but daughter, this stuff you can smoke. It will make you feel alright. But don’t smoke it all for it is our main cash crop.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 16, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Thanks for your reply and for a reasoned answer. I reckon it’s always been a problem, what to do with people, and I wouldn’t be surprised if supposedly divine sanctions of or against a practice like polygamy came about as ex post facto aetiological myths (though that’s rather speculative, not to mention a terminological redudancy) for what had previously been rather a practical matter. (Certainly second sons, under a primogenital system, are good candidates for colonialists, as far as that goes.)
But in 21st-century America can that sort of social engineering be justified? Why can’t Allahpundit, for example (who I’m sure is in fact as alpha as they get) marry every single girl at Fox News? If they’re keen on the idea, then how could one say no to that? Seriously, what reason would you give? (And remember that with the groom in question, appeals to religion will not carry much water.)
This goes to the question of what a civil marriage is supposed to mean at all. (As it happens, I’m about to be civilly married… and in the Netherlands no less!) I believe that there’s something mystical and transcendent about the union of man and woman and consider the covenant of marriage an important religious thing (even if performed by a justice of the peace, a Hindoo priest or (God forbid) a Protestant minister). But that’s a matter for her and me in the sight of God. What has the state, as the representative of our fellow citizens, got to do with that? Who invited them?
One begins in fact to wonder, why is there such a thing as civil weddings (or the civil recognition of religious weddings) anyway? Any thoughts, anybody?
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 11:37 PM
I’m sure you don’t mean they shared a kidney! ;)
I’m going to bed now and will check tomorrow for answers to the above, which I ask in all sincerity. I’m honestly at a loss towards the whole matter. Again, thanks.
Tzetzes on April 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Do mormons(like muslims)also practice taqiya (or lying strategically)?
JOSEPH SMITH HAD 33 WIVES, THE VAST MAJORITY OF WHICH, WERE TEENAGE GIRLS, 14 YEARS OLD TO 18 YEARS OLD!
If Joseph Smith were alive today, this would his compound they were busting and freeing his abused molested young teenage girls.
Now do you understand why all the mormons here are defending this sicko?
Seriously, if any of you mormons believe in Jesus Christ, and not joseph smith’s false prophecies, that contradict the Bible, then get out of that cult while you still can!
SaintOlaf on April 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM
Why polygamy is wrong?
Because it reduces women to nothing more than pieces of meat, uncovered or otherwise. It treats women as a commodity that can be monopolized by just a few men. In fact, at these FLDS compounds, competition for wives was reduced by kicking boys and young men out of them for some minor infraction or the other.
Child marriage?
Obvious reasons.
mram on April 17, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Tzetzes,
Marriages provide stability to the state. Statistically, a family with a married father and mother produces the most stable, nurturing, safe environment for the future citizens of that state. (And for all the naysayers out there, yes, there are exceptions to the rule.) Therefore is behooves the government to give incentives for this arrangement.
However, during the last 50 years or so, what was once a standard for society has slowly degraded to the lowest denominator. Furthermore, the overriding incentive for men to marry, frequent sex, has given away to females being promiscuous and indulging in wanton sex. Since men can go out and get laid almost at will without marriage, society ends up having a lot of single women with children living in poverty. (See my post at 6:30 PM) Now the state has to take care of this woman and her kids. Furthermore the woman goes through a series of boyfriends who use her for sex but does not provide any stability and/or very little or no income in this arrangement. Therefore, these non-productive citizens drain the limited resources of the state.
That is the incentive for the state except socialist states that proclaim, “All your children our ours” as the State of Texas declared to the FLDS members.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM
SaintOaf,
Where did the term “Old Maid” arise?
During what decade in the last century did western societies move away from the term Old Maid?
Why do you compare today’s standards to those over 150 years ago?
How old was Joseph Smith when he was murdered?
Prior to 1850, what was the normal age differences between husband and wife?
Prior to 1750, 1650, 1550, on down to 2000 BC same question and why?
PrettyD_Vicious on April 17, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Take a course in social anthropology. Research both polygamy and polyandry. In the past, both increased the economic strength of that family. I think it is a different case with the FLDS members, but your premise is not a reasoned statement.
PrettyD_Vicious on April 17, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Throw the book at the perverts.
packsoldier on April 17, 2008 at 1:11 AM
But it is their choice. it is not the government’s business, period.
AprilOrit on April 17, 2008 at 2:54 AM
Thanks once again for a thoughtful post. What you say about social stability is not a negligible matter, but I’m still unsure how far that should be the government’s concern. You point out that the existence of single parents can be a drain on governmental resources, but then again so are (in the healthcare sector) smoking and fatty foods, and I’m hesitant to let the government be the one to put disincentives on those things.
However, as far as women’s losing out on the advantages of marriage because of many men’s unwillingness to commit (to “buy the cow”), the possibility of a polygamous marriage (rare as those would surely be) could only help the matter.
The one concern that could sway me is the welfare of children, and I imagine that (aside from any curious looks they might get at school) the children in such marriage would on average fare at least as well as those in single-parent homes, especially if their parents’ practice were decriminalized.
Tzetzes on April 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Oh, and then there’s always AprilOrit’s libertarian approach, which certainly has got its merits.
Tzetzes on April 17, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »