Reader comments
Daughter of polygamist writes of LDS women
125 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
ERIK | 4:53 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
I THINK POYGAMY WAS NEEDED, I AM THANKFUL IT HAPPENED BECUASE I WOULD NOT BE
HERE, I AM THANKFUL THE CHURCH NO LONGER PRACTICES IT. I DON'T WANT MORE
THAN ONE WIFE. THE STRESS OF ONE FAMILY IS MORE THAN I WANT AT TIMES. GET OVER
IT AND LIVE AND LET LIVE
Becky | 5:07 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
So, did Joseph Smith tell everyone polygamy is okay or not?
Shawnae | 5:24 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Dorothy is an amazing woman--we should aspire to be so down to earth, excepting,
intelligent and loving. Much aloha!!
Comments continue below
Thomas | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
That quote from D&C 132 hit me with something I hadn't thought of
before: Wasn't Joseph Smith violating the "law of the
priesthood" when he entered into polygamous relationships before getting
Emma's "consent" first?
Because it's pretty clear that not only did she *not* consent before Joseph's polygamous marriages were made, she didn't even know about them. It's far from clear, in fact, that she was *ever* on board with the idea, notwithstanding D&C 132's specific threat that she would be "destroyed" if she didn't get with the program.
Furthermore, it appears that a woman taken as a polygamous wife must be a "virgin." Didn't Parley Pratt break this rule when he took another (non-member) man's former wife as a plural wife? (The former husband, a Missourian, responded by shooting Elder Pratt dead, which is thought to have contributed to the Mountain Meadows massacre.)
Any thoughts? How can D&C 132 be reconciled with the actual practice of Mormon polygamy? Can it?
Because it's pretty clear that not only did she *not* consent before Joseph's polygamous marriages were made, she didn't even know about them. It's far from clear, in fact, that she was *ever* on board with the idea, notwithstanding D&C 132's specific threat that she would be "destroyed" if she didn't get with the program.
Furthermore, it appears that a woman taken as a polygamous wife must be a "virgin." Didn't Parley Pratt break this rule when he took another (non-member) man's former wife as a plural wife? (The former husband, a Missourian, responded by shooting Elder Pratt dead, which is thought to have contributed to the Mountain Meadows massacre.)
Any thoughts? How can D&C 132 be reconciled with the actual practice of Mormon polygamy? Can it?
convoluted mess | 5:51 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Sounds like another undiscerned revelation to me.
What a silly mess!
What a silly mess!
Becky | 6:03 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Uh-oh Thomas. You are giving some righteous Mormons a headache. (Those who are
practicing free agency anyway)
A Sister In Zion | 6:04 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
I think that this article is about a new book that tells, in detail, about the
women of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and their Sisterhood.
Instead, I see people who are really just looking for a forum in which to debate
and argue about the controversy around polygamy. How very off topic! I think
that discussion is more appropriate around an article about the Jeffs group or
one of Solomon's other (more polygamy-focussed) books. What about a
celebration that there is yet another resource that can be used as a missionary
tool, a lesson manual detailing the women of the church (both past and present),
a history book, and another way to experience parts of the Gospel?
Wouldn't it be great if we could come together as a people and learn about
these women that were pivotal in assisting in the creation of the modern woman,
learn new things, and celebrate the resources available to all through the
gospel and church? Instead, we choose to bicker, fight, Bible thump, and Mormon
bash. No wonder we are at war... Thank you Mrs. Solomon for your hard work and
enlightened research!
Rebecca | 6:29 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Re: Sister in Zion,
How absurd to believe you can disassociate polygamy from a person's experiences about a polygamist family. Next you'll be saying: "this is what is supposed to happen in the last days" and that will be that.
I wish Mormon women would unite and change the terrible injustices heaped upon them in this monstrous patriarchal system. I am closer to this problem than you might think, Sister.
How absurd to believe you can disassociate polygamy from a person's experiences about a polygamist family. Next you'll be saying: "this is what is supposed to happen in the last days" and that will be that.
I wish Mormon women would unite and change the terrible injustices heaped upon them in this monstrous patriarchal system. I am closer to this problem than you might think, Sister.
Steve | 6:35 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
To Thomas:
Neither Joseph the Prophet nor Parley P. Pratt were breaking the law of the priesthood in taking - with the case of Joseph - wives without Emma's consent or - in the case of Elder Pratt - taking non-virgin wives. If I am not mistaken, D&C 132:61-62 details that consent is only needed from the first wife if that first wife is still a virgin AND if the 2nd wife is a virgin also. Joseph's first plural wife Fanny Alger was a virgin when he married her in 1833. Emma, however, was not a virgin. Therefore, no consent was needed from Emma for Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger - something which was apparently a great joy for the Alger family. This is, as I understand it, the Law of Virgins. Simply put, consent is only needed in the taking of another virgin if the first wife is a virgin. Also, these passages do not say that only virgins can be taken as plural wives. It is just detailing how to properly take virgins as wives. I think that that is how it works. If I am wrong, which I might be, please someone correct me.
Steve
Neither Joseph the Prophet nor Parley P. Pratt were breaking the law of the priesthood in taking - with the case of Joseph - wives without Emma's consent or - in the case of Elder Pratt - taking non-virgin wives. If I am not mistaken, D&C 132:61-62 details that consent is only needed from the first wife if that first wife is still a virgin AND if the 2nd wife is a virgin also. Joseph's first plural wife Fanny Alger was a virgin when he married her in 1833. Emma, however, was not a virgin. Therefore, no consent was needed from Emma for Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger - something which was apparently a great joy for the Alger family. This is, as I understand it, the Law of Virgins. Simply put, consent is only needed in the taking of another virgin if the first wife is a virgin. Also, these passages do not say that only virgins can be taken as plural wives. It is just detailing how to properly take virgins as wives. I think that that is how it works. If I am wrong, which I might be, please someone correct me.
Steve
Becky | 6:59 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
I'm waiting for someone to say,
"It's not secret - it's sacred.
What a crock!
"It's not secret - it's sacred.
What a crock!
Thomas | 7:11 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Steve -- That's a really interesting read of D&C 132. I suppose you
could make an argument for it.
The problem is that verses 61 through 63 are the only ones in LDS scripture that actually authorize polygamy under *any* circumstances (i.e. involving virgins or otherwise). They're not a special "Law of Virgins" -- they're the only scriptural authority for plural marriage, *period.*
Under the circumstances, I think the better reading is that verse 61 sets for the *cumulative* conditions that must be satisfied, if polygamy is not to constitute adultery. Those conditions are (1) the first wife must have been a virgin when first married; (2) the first wife must give her consent to the taking of a second wife; and (3) the second wife must also be a virgin when first married, and "vowed to no other man."
Alternatively, you could read it as stating that both the first wife and the plural wives have to be virgins at the time any plural marriages are contracted -- meaning basically you need to marry everyone simultaneously.
Of course, verse 59 basically says "Whatever Joseph says is right," so maybe that trumps the apparent conflict with scripture here.
The problem is that verses 61 through 63 are the only ones in LDS scripture that actually authorize polygamy under *any* circumstances (i.e. involving virgins or otherwise). They're not a special "Law of Virgins" -- they're the only scriptural authority for plural marriage, *period.*
Under the circumstances, I think the better reading is that verse 61 sets for the *cumulative* conditions that must be satisfied, if polygamy is not to constitute adultery. Those conditions are (1) the first wife must have been a virgin when first married; (2) the first wife must give her consent to the taking of a second wife; and (3) the second wife must also be a virgin when first married, and "vowed to no other man."
Alternatively, you could read it as stating that both the first wife and the plural wives have to be virgins at the time any plural marriages are contracted -- meaning basically you need to marry everyone simultaneously.
Of course, verse 59 basically says "Whatever Joseph says is right," so maybe that trumps the apparent conflict with scripture here.
SC LDS | 7:34 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Anti-anti-Mormon,
What are you, against anti-Mormons or doubly against Mormons????
What are you, against anti-Mormons or doubly against Mormons????
in the books | 9:57 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
sounds like were going to work at debunking the myth that mormon woman are weak
and subserviant to their husbands. the mormon woman is strong and equally yoked
with her husband. they are partners they are equals. remember the priesthood
never operated on any principal other than love, if not it has no force. anybody
out there who thinks that mormon woman are oppressed should read this book.
Maybe they don't strive to achieve what the world calls success. but what
does the world know anyway. im glad my strong independent mormon mother was
always there for me and my siblings.
George | 10:13 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
I have a beautiful handwritten letter of several pages, authored by the
father of Dorothy Allred Soloman. Rulon Allred was a strong believer in
pural marriage. He took the time to explain the principle to me prior to
his untimely death. I treasure the same. I hope that she will always
cherish his heritage.
father of Dorothy Allred Soloman. Rulon Allred was a strong believer in
pural marriage. He took the time to explain the principle to me prior to
his untimely death. I treasure the same. I hope that she will always
cherish his heritage.
blah blah blah | 10:30 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Honestly, its just weird to hear people talk about polygamy. On the one side
Mormons say "Well we practiced it once, but not anymore!" like it was
a mistake then, or some red-neck solution to hard times. If no one had sex, why
marry at all? I have cousins over all the time, we feed and clothe them without
having sex. What is the truth? Mormons are confused a little because "why
introduce polygamy and then just do away with it in a couple of years?"
The truth is the concept of "polygamy" still exists, but in a
different form that isn't polygamy. Now "polygamy" is a celestial
calling, and not a terrestrial one. A man is only "sealed" to one
woman. If she passes on before her husband, he can be sealed to another. Woman
are not sealed again to others if their husbands die. So stop saying, "Oh
no, we don't practice polygamy...its EVIL!" because its not. While
you might not call it polygamy today, the truth is in the eternal sense, when we
are resurrected, I won't be able to tell the difference between polygamous
families of today vs. the original recipe of days gone by .
Rob | 11:09 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
Thank you "In the Books" I am struggling to give my last daughter the
best gift I think I could give her. A mother that is home for her. All else is
less than I would want. I bless my lucky stars for having my good mother their
for me. I, like most of the LDS men I know, give everything they have and will
ever have, to the building of an united and happy family. And every one
knows,"when mom an't happy a'nt no one happy". Many blessing
to all who love and serve their families unselfishily and with all their heart
might and mind.
Anonymous | 11:56 p.m. Oct. 29, 2007
she might not be down trodden but plenty of mormon women are...i was one of them
and have been free for 20 years and it is only now that i have found distance
enough to recover and empower myself. there is no need for religion to tell you
what to do and men to tell you that you are right or wrong.
Concerned | 2:46 a.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Anonymous- it sounds as though you have had some bad and very damaging
experiences that have left you feeling like you were wronged. There are horrible
people that do bad things, we all have free agency to choose good or evil.
I hope you understand that we can not judge groups as a whole from things done by one or two people. I would encourage you to reach out a try to gain good experiences.
Bitterness can cause so much heartache. There is so much beauty and goodness out there to gain and feel.
I hope you understand that we can not judge groups as a whole from things done by one or two people. I would encourage you to reach out a try to gain good experiences.
Bitterness can cause so much heartache. There is so much beauty and goodness out there to gain and feel.
Jane | 7:21 a.m. Oct. 30, 2007
I don't think you could call it "religion." It's more like a
good ol' boys club with the boys having way too much fun being gods of
their families.
And of course, some take it way too seriously as boys will be boys.
And of course, some take it way too seriously as boys will be boys.
Rashers | 7:57 a.m. Oct. 30, 2007
If you Mormons cant agree with each other, and use 'scripture' as one
would use swords against each other... how can you expect us who are not Mormons
to accept or respect the teaching of your church?
Seems to me a lady wrote a book and I wonder how many of you have acually read it before entering into this silly battle of words.
Seems to me a lady wrote a book and I wonder how many of you have acually read it before entering into this silly battle of words.
Scott | 8:10 a.m. Oct. 30, 2007
OK, OK, calm down. Most of what we've heard or been told about polygamy is
false. I will give no specifics. Go read and study it out a little. Try Todd
Compton's book "In Sacred Lonliness". I've even had a
member of the Quorum of Seventy recommend it. It talks about the WIVES of
Joseph Smith (at least 34, 11 who were married to other men). There are good
article from "apologists" on FARMS and FAIR websites. Of course alot
of anti Mormons have stuff on the LDS polygamy also, most of which,
incidentally, is true. Most, not all. I sincerely believe we all need to know
about this stuff, know about what happened and then make our own judgements
about what it really was about. This is not a pleasant journey but one worth
taking. We're all "grown up" now, we can handle it.
Maire | 11:02 a.m. Oct. 30, 2007
It is interesting to me that the only topic to be discussed here is polygamy.
In the U.S. as a whole, people are more concerned with who sleeps with whom than the welfare of education, poverty, human rights, and tolerance.
Dorothy Solomon is right when she says the human mind can entertain many different points of view and find a balance. One's own convictions need not cause us to slander others.
In the U.S. as a whole, people are more concerned with who sleeps with whom than the welfare of education, poverty, human rights, and tolerance.
Dorothy Solomon is right when she says the human mind can entertain many different points of view and find a balance. One's own convictions need not cause us to slander others.
To Duwayne Anderson | 11:58 a.m. Oct. 30, 2007
You sir are a shameless self-promoter.
Anonymous | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Dorothy Allred Solomon should be publicly honored to have exposed yet another
tawdry and weird tale of the culture that Gordon B. Hinckley himself called,
"a peculiar people."
Rich | 1:13 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
My view on polygamy is the same as my view on many other things: I do not need
to understand God's rationale for giving us a law. I only need to obey
him, and then I am entitled to the blessings that come from obeying that law.
When I violate a spiritual law, then I can expect negative consequences. So
what's important for me is to learn what God wants me to do, and then do
it. This takes study, pondering, prayer, humility and the willingness to obey
God. I am convinced that polygamy will never again be required of God's
servants here on earth. Those of you who try to divine the reasons the early
Mormons were told to live polygamy are only guessing. You don't need to
justify it. If God commanded it in the 1800s and banned it in 1890, don't
think you know why. The simple answer is that God does things on his own
timetable.
Proud Mother | 1:24 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
To the feminists on here that think that men have put them down for so long; How
stupid do you think our sex is? Has it never occured to you that perhaps women
want to bear children, or chose or even choose to live polygamy? Do you think
men are so much smarter and craftier than women that they can brain-wash us into
thinking that our salvation depends on doing what they tell us to? Do you think
that women are so dumb that WE can't promote the principles of Christ? If
a woman chooses to live in this lifestyle, even though I may not understand it,
it is still her right to do so. If real crime is comitted in thier society, as
in the case of Mr. Jeffs, he, not they, should be punished. It seems like with
all of the rights we have gained, we have mostly destroyed the true identity of
women. I applaud our R.S. President Beck for trying to get us back to what that
identity is. As far as the law of the land, one thought; What would we do if
congress passed a law stating that we couldnt baptize by immersion?
To anonynous of 12:39 | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Didn't God say that he would have a "peculiar people" Think about
it.
Anonymous | 1:59 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
With all due respect, Rich, you sound as if you have willingly become a slave to
the system. This is exactly what the powers that be require in a theocracy that
relies on dictating "God's way" to you.
I, on the other hand, will take my chances and declare my personal independence from this brand of authoritarianism and wish you the best of luck.
I, on the other hand, will take my chances and declare my personal independence from this brand of authoritarianism and wish you the best of luck.
People, realize things | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Over many years people have realized that certain behaviors are harmful.
"God" did not tell anybody to do these harmful things including
polygamy.
People are fallible....face it and move on. People sometimes use "God" to blame for their mistakes.
Polygamy is wrong; it hurts. We know that now. We are moving on.
People are fallible....face it and move on. People sometimes use "God" to blame for their mistakes.
Polygamy is wrong; it hurts. We know that now. We are moving on.
BABBBLLING BABbleYON!! | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Jane your right , hang in their sister!
Guaglione | 3:49 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Right or wrong, sin or sanctioned, wouldn't polygamy be better than most of
the relationships in the world now? Most people are polygamous anyway, just
without the marriage formalized. How many people sleep around with whomever
they will, male or female? I think it's hilarious that people get bent out
of shape over polygamy practiced over 100 years ago, but have no problem with
gay "marriage" today.
TYLER | 3:51 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
To "convert" as a member of the church, I understand where you're
coming from, and I'm not completely sure this is the official reason of the
church, but I believe the early leaders of the church practiced polygamy simply
to ensure the growth of the church. I do believe that those appointed at the
time to practice polygamy treated those in their family with upmost respect and
care. As far as heaven being full of that, I'd say that is mainly
incorrect. All members of the church who married in the temple to one woman will
stay with that same woman. Again I don't know for sure, just what I think.
Good talk!
Sorrytenderheart | 4:03 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
The comment from "Tenerheart" made me sick. Basically, because there
aren't enough righteous men, women are punished. I'm sorry the sister
wasted her money on baby clothes she hasn't used yet. Why doesn't she
give them to some needy young family.
here'sanidea | 4:10 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
What would really work out well weould be to have one woman and two or more men.
Think of the family's lifestyle with the extra incomes. The yard would
always look good, and each man could take turns helping out with the boy
scouting and sports coaching. And hey, since we're thinking about it, one
woman can easily satisfy more than one man on the same night.
And if this sounds absurd to you......think twice...
And if this sounds absurd to you......think twice...
One blessed woman | 4:16 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
I am a former Mormon woman (not "inactive" as the people downtown
insist I am because I did not jump through any hoops for them) - I just left.
Early on, something simply did not feel right about LDS doctrine to me. I felt I did not belong in the boy's club, walked away, and am now blissfully living in another state. I am successful, earn 110K per year, am healthy and happier than I've ever been in my life.
I hope other women can realize they do not need any patriarchal system in their lives to be blessed.
Early on, something simply did not feel right about LDS doctrine to me. I felt I did not belong in the boy's club, walked away, and am now blissfully living in another state. I am successful, earn 110K per year, am healthy and happier than I've ever been in my life.
I hope other women can realize they do not need any patriarchal system in their lives to be blessed.
And God gave his children | 5:41 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
the internet, so they could have one more medium to dispute his existence, argue
over his "intent" (as if they could read his mind), and continue to
drive a wedge between those who believe and don't believe.
What could we have accomplished for good in the world in the same amount of time we have wasted on this message board today? (I'm guilty!)80+ comments? I challenge everyone to find 80 good things to say about their spouse/child/parent/sibling before the end of the day... and say them with the same energy that you expressed on this message board today.
What could we have accomplished for good in the world in the same amount of time we have wasted on this message board today? (I'm guilty!)80+ comments? I challenge everyone to find 80 good things to say about their spouse/child/parent/sibling before the end of the day... and say them with the same energy that you expressed on this message board today.
Everything is beautiful | 6:16 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
To: "And God gave ..."
What might also be accomplished in this forum is the absolute recognition that there are many, many truths. Not just one sovereign one.
Until this is understood, you will have a Tower of Babel situation where people are expressing themselves in energetic ways -- but the diversity is beautiful. As it should be.
What might also be accomplished in this forum is the absolute recognition that there are many, many truths. Not just one sovereign one.
Until this is understood, you will have a Tower of Babel situation where people are expressing themselves in energetic ways -- but the diversity is beautiful. As it should be.
To Guaglione: | 7:47 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
I give an emphatic NO to your question. Yes, I agree we have lots of
relationships ended. But at least the theory is to END ONE relationship (not
have multiple ones at a time). Let's look at the people that commit
adultery. Is this a happy experience for anyone? Polygamy/Plural wives is simply
"exalted adultery". It was determined by courts that multiple
relationships cause hurt, poverty, abuse and inequality. I agree with this
because of the hurt that polygamy/plural wives caused my family generations ago.
Those that are promoters or supporters of this type of lifestyle better give up
soon. We're taking this very seriously now and it will be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law.
Adam Ondi Omlet | 9:39 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
Amazing what kind of ideological tripe people will eagerly swallow in the name
of blind faith!
Many societies also practiced cannibalism; does that make it "no biggie"?
True Christians have NEVER believed that polygamy is commanded by god. There is NO CHRISTIAN support for it. And that is another of the doctrines that makes Mormonism NOT CHRISTIAN! Get over it.
Many societies also practiced cannibalism; does that make it "no biggie"?
True Christians have NEVER believed that polygamy is commanded by god. There is NO CHRISTIAN support for it. And that is another of the doctrines that makes Mormonism NOT CHRISTIAN! Get over it.
H2O | 9:57 p.m. Oct. 30, 2007
I think it is clear from reading Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith that
Joseph had a healthy appetite for young girls. The most reasonable explanation
for polygamy among the Mormons is that Joseph got carried away with his
popularity and power, fell into sin with a young girl, and then tried to make it
appear as a command from God so his popularity and power would not be lost.
Annonymous | 12:09 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
I think that a lot of people lose their testimonies over polygamy, especially
girls. Heaven doesn't sound appealing if you HAVE to share your husband.
Joseph Smith said that there is monogamy AND polygamy in the celestial kingdom.
Just watch the church made movie on Joseph Smith, it's a direct quote from
it. I am sure that it will be a choice, and nobody will be forced to live that
law.
I agree "Anonymous" | 8:53 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
But more than that I don't believe there are these types of relationships
in "heaven". People have been trying to describe what they think
"heaven" will be like and they have taken it for granted that it will
be something like earth with marriage and all.
But I believe it won't be and so does much of the world.
But I believe it won't be and so does much of the world.
Metamoracoug | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
To One Blessed Woman: Glad you found happiness outside tyrannical confines of
Mormonism. My board-certified neuropsychologist and obviously oppressed) wife
finds happiness in it. And just for the record, her income is the same as
yours. More importantly, she is an intelligent, wise, understanding, and
charitable wife and mother. She is a really good boss, too. Yes, I work for
her. Happy Halloween!
metamoracoug | 9:04 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
to H2O: you have reached an interesting conclusion. It should be noted,
however, that there is probably not a soul on the face of the earth who
understands and knows Joseph Smith's history better than Richard Bushman.
And yet, he believes.
Metamoracoug | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
To H2O: I might also point out that your conclusion is contrary to
Bushman's, as demonstrated eliquently in the title of his Joseph Smith
biography.
LaVonne | 9:24 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
No anonymous, people lose their (scripted) testimonies (especially women) over
patriarchal abuse. Why would any woman in their right mind embrace such a
system?
The Healing Process | 9:40 a.m. Oct. 31, 2007
Now that it's all out in the open, the healing can begin. Except for the
women.
Tyler | 12:09 p.m. Oct. 31, 2007
Rashers,
I read the book and when I tried posting my commentary, I was edited out. My only comment was that this book should have been named: My life in Polygamy it was great and wonderful. She pussyfooted around the issues of clearcut abuse, including sexual simply because, as she stated: My father made me promise to not write anything bad about the family.
In polygamy, women and children often are in states of starvation because of not preferred wife status or simply because money is spread too thin. There are clearcut instances of abuse which she glossed over in which a father gets "first chance" at his daughter before she marries. Yet this was glossed over as inconsequential. I finished the book angry that she failed to write what she knows to be true in order to save family honor. This only protects the victimizer.
I read the book and when I tried posting my commentary, I was edited out. My only comment was that this book should have been named: My life in Polygamy it was great and wonderful. She pussyfooted around the issues of clearcut abuse, including sexual simply because, as she stated: My father made me promise to not write anything bad about the family.
In polygamy, women and children often are in states of starvation because of not preferred wife status or simply because money is spread too thin. There are clearcut instances of abuse which she glossed over in which a father gets "first chance" at his daughter before she marries. Yet this was glossed over as inconsequential. I finished the book angry that she failed to write what she knows to be true in order to save family honor. This only protects the victimizer.
No thanks | 12:42 p.m. Oct. 31, 2007
Slaves didn't rebel because they thought slavery was what they deserved,
just as polygamist wives think that is all they deserve from a husband.
It's all about human rights and when we tolerate abuse of those rights we
move backwards. Abraham Lincoln stated that both "Slavery and Polygamy
were the last two remnants of barbarism."
To Women in Polygamy | 3:47 p.m. Oct. 31, 2007
A person above asked us if we ever considered some women want to be in
polygamy/plual marriage. Ok, if a woman is well informed, not abused or in
poverty and that what she wants....go ahead.
We are talking to the majority of those involved in this practice and we're here to help. The majority need help, counseling, financial means to leave and supportive people.
We are here and we will help. We will not support slavery, polygamy or inequality anymore.
We are talking to the majority of those involved in this practice and we're here to help. The majority need help, counseling, financial means to leave and supportive people.
We are here and we will help. We will not support slavery, polygamy or inequality anymore.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- Salt Lake meeting and conventions 7:52 p.m.
- Signs of life on Black Friday 7:51 p.m.
- Fears ease despite debt crisis 7:50 p.m.
- Social media for holiday retail 7:48 p.m.
- Feds delay rules on gambling 7:47 p.m.
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins 7:30 p.m.
- Downtown holiday displays kick off 7:08 p.m.
- Tiger Woods was unconscious 7:05 p.m.
- Alabama rallies past Auburn 6:48 p.m.
- Five charged in cyber casino case 6:45 p.m.
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
263 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple211
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin133
- Boys basketball rankings127
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies106
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the holiday retail season...
When "Dancing With The Stars" began more than two months ago, 16 couples...
Comedian Brian Regan, who is scheduled to perform at Abravanel Hall on...
Latest comments
this should be al tournament team. not best players in the state.
THIS IS JUST HORRIBLE AND MY HEART GOES OUT TO THIS FAMILY......But why would...
Was an awesome game. Am I wrong?
Correction to my earlier remark. Elder...not Elder's. Pity there isn't an...
Whoa, he hit a water hazard and a tree and all on the same drive. I don't...
Better read the article again, Anonymous. The name of the young Elder's in...
how does voting against minarets stop Islam? (All Knowing seems to think this...
From George Bush who massaged German Chancellor Merkel's shoulders. Or...
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer. • Fact: ACORN never...
Ending these posts is not the way to go. Many, many fans come here to read...
Advertisements