My Life in a Polygamist Compound

Slate ^ | 04/16/08 | Torie Bosch

[DFG]

When Texas authorities seized 416 children in a raid on a compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Americans quickly learned that the religious group encourages polygamy and the marriage of young girls to older men. Escape, a memoir published last fall, offers a more detailed portrait of life with the FLDS. In the book, Carolyn Jessop, a sixth-generation polygamist describes her life as the fourth wife of Merril Jessop, who ran the recently raided Texas compound. Carolyn left Merril in 2003, before he moved to Texas, but her memoir sheds light on the man and on the beliefs and practices common within the insular community. Below, Slate flags Carolyn's most intriguing, strange, and heartbreaking allegations.

[taxcontrol]

Absolutely.

[SkyPilot]

Personally, I think he looks like Eddie Munster.

By the way, I am still laughing at your question.

Plus this - such a bonus:

I’ll answer your question with a like question.

I would like to answer your question question with a question question question.

"You Play Defense For Awhile Tactic."

[stlnative]

here is that same man...

[RichInOC]

The son has that “Dear God, please make it stop” look on his face.

[taxcontrol]

No I am not Mormon, and you need to read those requirements in the original Greek. You will find that the use of the “one” (mia in Greek) wife is only one of four possible translations. Possible alternative translations, based upon how ‘mia’ is translated in other passages, are:

... husband of a wife ...
... husband of a certain wife ...
... husband of one wife ...
... husband of at least one wife ...

Had the inference been “one and only one” the word that would have been used in ancient Greek is “monakribos”. In short, the English language of one is used in modern lexicon to place unintended emphasis on the singular.

Allow me to draw an English parallel. Do you own a chair in your house or apartment? Does that “a chair” mean only one or at least one?

[SkyPilot]

taxcontrol: I’ll answer your question with a like question. Does a man who is married commit lust in his heart when he lays with his wife?

Amazing.

You really think that a man who has sex with his wife is committing adultery in his heart?

Let's look at Matthew Chapter 5, verses 27 and 28, and what Christ said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

So, you think this applies to a man and wife having sexual relations?

The answer is No.

N.

O.

God intended men and women who are bound in marriage to have sex and enjoy each other. It is His plan. It is in both the Old and New Testaments.

Christ is God. He wrote the Books.

A man is supposed to desire his wife, and a wife her husband.

There is no sin their having sex.

What else can I explain for you today?

[taxcontrol]

Whoa there .... Please read the posts more carefully and don't jump to conclusions. I asked a question ... Does a man who is married commit lust in his heart when he lays with his wife? I made no statement about the possible answers to that question. I agree with you that a man does not break God's law when he desires or lays with his wife.

Now I am sure that at some point, we will have divergent beliefs, so I'm going to go slow with this process to identify those points so that we can discuss. So where we differ feel free to comment.

So, if a man is a widower, does he go astray with his second wife? I say no as the previous wife has no “hold” on him after her death.

If a man is divorced, does he go astray with his second wife. The scripture says he causes her to commit adultery, so I say yes, he does commit a sin.

The big question here is does a man who takes a second wife break from God's will. I have found no scripture to support that statement, further, there exists a condition under OT law were polygamy is required. Add to that Nathan lists the many blessings God bestowed on Kind David and lists the many (6) wives.

So it all can be summed up in a simple question. How can a God who is without sin, give a sin as a blessing. In short, I do not believe such is possible.

[greyfoxx39]

Here we go again........The big question here is does a man who takes a second wife break from God's will. I have found no scripture to support that statement, further, there exists a condition under OT law were polygamy is required. Add to that Nathan lists the many blessings God bestowed on Kind David and lists the many (6) wives.

Your statement and probably ALL the arguments for polygamy have been discussed thoroughly on this thread.

HERE

No need to divert this thread into that discussion again. I'd suggest a start somewhere in the posts after about 1500.

[CindyDawg]

Does a man who is married commit lust in his heart when he lays with his wife?

I guess it depends on if he is thinking about his wife or someone else?

[greyfoxx39]

[CindyDawg]

In all fairness...when you dude a little boy up like that and make him pose for pictures this is often what you get’)

[SkyPilot]

So, if a man is a widower, does he go astray with his second wife?

That is now what you asked.

If a man is divorced, does he go astray with his second wife.

That is not what you asked.

The big question here is does a man who takes a second wife break from God's will.

Again, not what you asked. What you have attempted to do is to gain a foothold into sin, and then justify polygamy. I see the LDS crowd attempt the same shenanigan here all the time.

Why were you not honest about your intentions from the start? Why did you misrepresent your original question about sexual relations between ONE man and ONE wife - instead of muddying the waters with all of your garbage?

I know why. You wanted to shift the moral ground to suit your self and your agenda. Well, you did your business on the floor - but it isn't any more fertile.

So it all can be summed up in a simple question. How can a God who is without sin, give a sin as a blessing. In short, I do not believe such is possible.

Ahh. Heeeere we go. God's sanctions polygamy? No.

The reason many LDS here (are you LDS?) want that to be the case is because Joseph Smith screwed A LOT of women. A lot. So did Brigham Young. Now, if that was sinful, the whole shebang of the Mormon church is in heap big trouble. The halo of the "prophet" is in jeopardy.

Am I getting warm?

God NEVER sanctioned polygamy.

I refer you to this thread.

Take some time to read it. Please. If you say you don't have the time - then you don't really care. The LDS defenders try (very hard) to justify polygamy. The responses that shut them down cold are my evidence to you that you are all wet.

[Old Mountain man]

Good to know you admit to being a felon (false report of a crime).

[DugwayDuke]

“The charges, however anonymous, are against the males of the community. Is this too simple or am I missing something?”

There are three things you’re missing:

1. These ‘mothers’ are at least co-conspiratories or accessories to the child rape.

2. These ‘mothers’ are indoctrinated into the teachings of this religion. If given access to the children, they will try to taint the childrens testimony.

3. Even if you don’t accept the fact that these ‘mothers’ are co-conspirators they remain witnesses, it is simple investagatory procedure that witnesses are segregated so they cannot discuss or coordinate potential testimony.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s pretty much my perception concerning the situation. I do believe we relax our calls for adhering to constitutional guidelines at our own risk. That’s about the question I have at this point Did we adhere? If so, I am comfortable with what is taking place.

[SkyPilot]

Oh, by the way, here are the poor women Joseph Smith stuck his penis into and called them "wives."

The Wives of Joseph Smith

The count is either 27, 33, 47, or 60.

I can't nail it down - but Joey did.

Brigham Young had 17 (officially). It may have been a few more - but heck, what is a bunch of nookie between friends?

Also, to help you out a bit, here is another source for you.

I get the feeling you are going to complain that you will not read a long thread.

Does the Bible clearly teach monogamy?

Answer The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matt. 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Gen. 1:27 and 2:24, saying ‘the two will become one flesh’, not more than two. Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Eph. 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy — Jesus will not have multiple brides. The 10th Commandment ‘… You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife [singular] …’ (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Tim. 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: ‘each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.’ Paul goes on to explain marital duties in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife. God also forbade the kings of Israel to be polygamous (Deut. 17:17). Look at the trouble when they disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives; and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah (1 Sam. 1:1–7).

[SkyPilot]

From Desert Saints Magazine:

More to the point, this beautiful, temple-worthy bride was married in the Newport Beach Temple, in this dress.

Hey - maybe some Temple Worthy Men can get in on this action?

[DoughtyOne]

You don’t have all the answers then hot shot. This is a discussion and you’re not omnipotent. Quit acting like it, and quit acting like you can’t understand my point, unless you truly are incapable of grasping it.

[SkyPilot]

No - I don't have all the answers because I am not God.

I can refer you to His word if you like.

Quit acting like it, and quit acting like you can’t understand my point, unless you truly are incapable of grasping it.

Fair enough. What is your point?

[DoughtyOne]

What in heaven’s name am I missing here? Was it your perception that first marriages of women in those time frames occurred at nearly 25 years of age? Either this data is screwy or my perceptions have been way off base.

I’m having a hard time accepting these numbers.