Sunday, February 08, 2009

Canada and Polygamy

Well, since Winston Blackmore's and Jim Oler's arrests this is what seems to be on everyone's minds so I thought I'd give us a place to discuss it more fully.

22 comments:

Rebeckah said...

Well I'm not sure just what's going on at the moment. I know I'm extremely curious as to why there isn't an attempt to find out just WHO has married underaged girls and impregnated them and prosecute them accordingly. I think that is one of the big issues, not women who've been convinced that sharing their man gives them brownie points in heaven.

Anonymous said...

Rebeckah. The law enforcement had 4 police officers working on this case for the past 2 1/2 years investigating allegations of sexual exploitations, under age marriages, and cross border smuggling of young girls. The allegations were proved as they called it "not enough evidence to make charges". that is why they have only pressed charges for polygamy.

Anonymous said...

True, but they didnt have personal dictations from Warren Jeffs all the way back to 2004 Like Texas has and has been printed on the internet.

Anonymous said...

You just targeted the wrong man that is all. They did not know where to look and would not find abuse if it was sitting on there doorstep.

Anonymous said...

and after intimidating the witnesses beyond mesure, calling them a liar, and all they would never find abuse, if it was sitting on there doorstep. and who would report it now, after being made fun of and hassled and insulted? Don't you know the people who report abuse are the bad guys today? they would not know abuse if it was right in front of thier noses. But in the end it ends. I am grateful we do not stay on this earth forever. They would not know abuse if it was posted in front of thier faces. and of course they targeted religion. YOu just targeted the wrong person. That is all.

Anonymous said...

and it is as insultingg as you can get to think that one certian person you all like to hate would tell me what to say. YOu are in someways gossip mongers. they would nto find abuse if it was posted in front of their face. All a man has to have is a fancy suit, a little money and a lie on his lips and he would be hid forever from his assults.

Rebeckah said...

I'm starting to think that we need stricter reporting standards for when a woman has a child. (By "we" I mean the US, I'm not a Canadian citizen.) Anyway, it would seem that it would be easy enough to prove this sexual abuse if pregnancies were being followed and births were being recorded. (Honestly, stillbirths and misciarrages should be recorded too.) If we know who the mother and father are and how old they are at the time of the child's birth (or death in the case of a stillbirth or miscarriage) then you'd know, for sure, that there was or was not sexual exploitation going on. Is it really that hard to keep track of? (I am asking in all seriousness. I don't understand a lot of legal ramifications of some of these issues.)

Anonymous said...

No comments on here worth reading yet!!
Do you really think the US Govt. would be able to keep track of the sex lives of 308 million people?

cheese said...

Do you really think it's their business?

Rebeckah said...

There's a difference between trying to keep track of someone's sex life and trying to monitor and prevent sexual abuse and exploitation of children. I realize those who practice manditory polygny (under pain of eternal damnation and destruction, just read D&C 132) would like the "right" to marry off 13 and 14 year olds, but it isn't going to ever be a "right". You want to marry 15 women and convince them to marry you, good for you. Of course, I also feel it's way past time for an overhaul of our medical, food stamp and financial assistance since most taxpayers aren't interested in supporting someone else's ascent into Godhood.

Actually, I'm starting to think that the reason this is such a hot issue is that the older women are simply more likely to examine this situation critically, where as these young girls haven't had the pre-frontal lobe development to give a truly analytical assesment. Get 'em while they're young and managable, eh?

Anonymous said...

Rebeckah Plural Marriage is mandatory in the Morman faith for those seeking to go to the highest degree. the error in the past few decades has become with men taking these young girls. Plural marriage as God had in mind was for men to take the widows and other women who were found without companionship. You will find that in the history of John Taylor and Heber C kimbal. They were at a time when there was allot of mob violence killing off the mormon people. Most of the plural wives of these men were widowed or seperated. Your note about birth records. The RCMP did obtain all the records from the private bountiful midwifery clinic which they did use in the investigation against Winston and Jimmy.

Rebeckah said...

Thank you, Anon 9:51. If they have the records, then why can't they make cases? Are the father's not listed? Or are there lies about who the fathers are? If Blackmoore said publicly that he married underage girls, then why can't they show evidence of the girl's children by him?

I think that your principle, as it is described, would be far more acceptable than what is currently practiced, but I don't know how feasable it was, even back then. I know that there was never a time in Utah's recorded history when women outnumbered men. Since the death rates for women was actually higher than that for men, I would think that only a few men could actually practice polygamy according to the method you describe. It seems to me (although I'm not claiming any absolute truth here, just my opinion) that the practice of taking young brides serves two purposes; it provides more women for men to marry, and it provides younger women who are more easily ruled. The older a woman gets the more she will think for herself. However if she already has 5 or 10 children before she starts to wonder just what's in it for her, it is harder as a matter of practicality for her to leave her situation. But that's just my take on it.

silver said...

Anonymous said at 9:51: "Plural marriage as God had in mind was for men to take the widows and other women who were found without companionship."

Well that explains why Joseph Smith married youg women, including at least one minor. They were already widowed, or otherwise without companionship.

Anonymous said...

There is a vast differance in the FLDS practice of "placement marriage" than the polygamy practiced by the Mormon Church and Joseph Smith.FLDS is and has been a cult,at least since 1980's.

Rebeckah said...

Anonymous 9:27, actually from what I've read the practices of the FLDS are closer to what Joseph Smith and the early prophets practiced than otherwise. I still remember reading about the "Don't pick a sheep until the Bishops get a shot at her" thing (I think that was Brigham Young) and then there was Bishop Snow who had a man castrated because he wouldn't give up his fiancee when Bishop Snow decided he should have her instead. Do the records of Utah support this view of what Polygamy was or is it a comforting fantasy? Certainly Joseph doesn't seem to have married any widows or spinsters.

Anonymous said...

Rebekah,Your anti-LDS bigotry is transparent.Why do you quote old nineteenth century anti-mormon propoganda?

Anonymous said...

Rebekah,
You are quoting 19th century Anti-Mormon yellow journalism.Would you read the literature of Nazism to study Jewish history?Joseph and Brigham both married several spinsters and elderly widows.

Anonymous said...

That's ok Rebeca,the only people who told on Hitler were the ones that survived his abuse.

Rebeckah said...

Anonymous 1:22 and 1:40, I guess I quote it because that's what I've read about. However, I was legitimately asking if what I read was wrong. How many spinsters and widows did they marry? Out of how many wives? Were they practicing the Principle as it was explained to me in the majority of their marriages or was it something of an afterthought? I ask because I'm curious. If you're saying that the Principle was supposed to provide husbands for spinsters and widows then I would expect the majority of plural marriages (as opposed to intial marriages) to be made from the available pool of widows and spinsters. So, was it? Or am I misunderstanding the Principle as you've explained it?

silver said...

Celestial marriage is to be lived in such a way that a family is continuously growing larger; the role of young wives is obvious. There are also obviously instances in which widows or older women become part of a polygamous family. But describing the Principle as if the incorporation of widows is the objective is for the purpose of making the arrangement sound equitable, which is it not, fair, which it is not, and more palatable to non-believers, such as myself.

Rebeckah said...

Thank you, Silver. That does line up with the research I've done to date. So it is not "19th century yellow, anti-mormon journalism" necessarily, simply facts that they'd rather not look at today?

MeganC said...

Rebecca, ot everyone in poly is a Mormon and your idea about more government control of children is sick. Look what the government did to the children at the YFZ Ranch! You want that same government to have more power??? Even the judges in Texas said the government was wrong and violating peoples rights. I agree that underage girls should be safe from abuse but families, even FLDS families, who take good care of their children should not have to register their kids anymore than you should have to register your computer or your gun with the government. If we can't be free from the government when we mind our own business then we are not free at all. And I don't want to live in that kind of country.