When Polygamists Sound Like Christian Legalists

"We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom then we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature then we are of falling into legalism. Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on externals and sometimes trivial rules"…Jerry Bridges
 

 

Favorite Wife: Escape From Polygamy by Susan Ray Schmidt

 

amazon.com

 

 

 

This is story about a coming of age, abuse, pain and, in the end, redemption. But first, it is important to look at some basic points about the history of Mormonism and polygamy. This is an awkward subject for many Mormons. In my discussions with my Mormon friend, Vinnie, over the course of  1 1/2 years, I found my questions about this original practice were received with some discomfort. As he and his friends would say, "Joseph Smith said this was his hardest teaching." They claimed that he didn't want to do this but felt compelled by the revelation. However, Smith did apply  this in his own life, with wild abandon, in my never to be humble opinion.

 

I found an excellent site that answers many questions about polygamy entitled Mormon Polygamy Overview. 
 

Sometime around 1831, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, received a visit from an angel that told him to institute polygamous marriages; in particular one husband with many wives. It is interesting to note that Brigham Young, his successor, believed that a man should not have more than 999 wives since Solomon was chastised for having 1000 wives! Can you imagine?? Joseph Smith had approximately 33 wives,while Brigham Young had 55.

 

The United States passed laws in the 1800s against the practice of polygamy. Utah, wishing to achieve the benefits of statehood, found that it's acceptance of polygamy was a deterrant to statehood. So, Wilford Woodruff, the Prophet in 1890, received a vision and issued "The Manifesto" which outlawed polygamy for Mormons. It is convenient that this revelation came at the perfect moment for them to achieve statehood. There were a fair number of Mormons who believed that the LDS leadership sold out to Uncle Sam and quietly continued their polygamous practices. 

 

It is a little known fact that Mormons believe that Jesus was married to Mary and Martha at the wedding at Cana.  Brigham Young also stated "The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children."
  Also, it is an LDS teaching  that polygamy will continue in heaven after the Second Coming .

 

My first experience with polygamy came when I worked as a nurse on the Navajo Reservation, My Navajo interpreter showed me a compound near the border of Utah that was the home of polygamous Mormons. It was a dusty compound surrounded with cattle fencing. I saw little girls in long dresses playing in the distance.He said, in Navajo deadpan fashion, “I can’t manage one wife, how do they survive 10?” We both laughed.

 

Recently, I read this book written by a woman who, for a short time, was the favorite wife in a polygamous family. Susan was raised in the 1950s and 60s in a loving Mormon family who lived in a polygamous compound in rural Mexico. Many polygamists moved to Mexico which tolerated their practices, especially underage marriages.  She was raised to believe that she would not get into the highest level of heaven if she was not part of a polygamous marriage. She was taught to believe that she would go to "hell" if she rejected these teachings, Although a girl could choose to reject a marriage proposal, she was expected to marry at an early age. Girls as young as 14 were considered marriageable.
 

There was a firm belief that the husbands were the authority figure in the marriage and that the girls needed to be married in order to be under their husband’s covering. There seemed to be a belief that a woman was also saved by bearing lots of children which showed God’s pleasure with her obedience.
 

Susan was a typical teenage girl, with dreams about marrying a goodlooking man and having lots of children. She recounts her early teen years with great poignancy.She claimed she had a dream at the age of 15 to marry Verlan LeBaron,  who was one of the "good-looking" leaders of this cult which had a several compunds scattered throughout Mexico and Central America. She would be his fifth wife.

 

Unbeknownst to Susan, Verlan was involved in a violent feud with his brother , Ervil, for control of this group of people. Interestingly, Ervil tried to convince Susan to marry him. Thankfully, she did not. One of his wives went missing and was never found. It is estimated that over two dozen people may have been murdered from 1972 to 1988, mainly by Ervil.  This was written about in the book 4 O' CLOCK MURDERS by Scott Anderson.
 

Susan quickly learned how difficult life could be for the family of a polygamist. She had five children by her mid 20s. Verlan would go onto have 10 wives and 58 children.

  • The wives did not like each other and all of them were vying for the attention of Verlan.
  • Verlan showed little attention to the children, sending them outside whenever he was at one of his homes.
  • Verlan had very little money and the families had a subsistence level of life. 
  • They were often hungry and mostly lived in beaten down trailers, often with no heat or electricity. They wore clothes that were rejected by charities. The children were educated in makeshift schools with the wives doing most of the teaching.

 

As time went on, Susan became disillusioned by her faith and the sacrifices it demanded of both her and her children.. The final straw occurred when Verlan moved her to a jungle in Nicaragua with some of the other wives to start a new polygamous compound. They lived in abject poverty, fighting hunger and disease. Susan decided to leave Verlan and escaped with her children. Eventually she became a Christian and married a wonderful man.
 

This book taught me a number of lessons. I was astonished by the similarities of the teaching of this polygamous group and certain fundamentalist and hyper-authoritarian based churches. If one removed the issue of polygamy and Joseph Smith, I contend there would be little difference between the teachings of this group and certain churches and groups that we have discussed on this blog.
 

1. Many groups, both orthodox Christians and cult groups who claim to have Christian roots, often emphasize certain passages in the Scriptures to the exclusion of others. Such groups tend to be authoritarian based, legalistic and occasionally abusive
 

2. Avoid groups who have special rules that they claim are “Biblical.” People are often willing to accept the teachings of their parents or “famous” or well placed leaders without questioning their veracity or validity.

  • Patriarchalism
  • Quiverfull
  • Young Earth Creationism
  • Mandatory tithing

 

3. Isolationism can breed abuse. There are many Christian groups which isolate themselves from the outside world. They spend all of their spare time at church or small groups in which rules of the subgroup are taught and accepted without reservation because dissension and questioning have been quashed.
 

4. Some groups present themselves as having the only “true” understanding of the Scriptures and convince their followers that they are the “real” Christians. This makes it hard for people to leave such groups. When they do, they are often told they are giving in to Satan or are in danger of hell.
 

5.Beware of any pastor or leader who fashions himself as specially “anointed”, standing “in the very stead of God, ” or having special “authority.” These men are usually hyper-authoritarian and will stomp on those who bring dissenting points of view. They usually surround themselves with men who will back up the pastor’s special status and will enforce their own peculiar rules and regulations which are often used to shore up their own power base. I call these guys "admirals in rowboats."

 

6. Beware churches in which men are looked at as having special anointings that are unavailable to women.

  • Men are to be the “covering” for their wives. So who is the covering for a 60 year old unmarried woman?
  • Men are “in authority” and women are to submit to them at all costs, even when abuse is present.
  • Men hold the key to the salvation for women. Women ride their husband’s coattails into heaven.

 

7.Run from groups in which women are told that they are “saved” by bearing children.

 

I think this book is a good read for questioning Christians who wonder how such cult groups can go so far off track. However, be prepared to be challenged. There are many notorious and well-known “orthodox” churches who do not practice certain tenets of Mormonism or polygamy but might not be at all unlike Susan’s cult compound. That's a little scary, isn't it?

 

Lydia's Corner: Exodus 17:8-19:15 Matthew 22:34-23:12 Psalm 27:7-14 Proverbs 6:27-35

Comments

When Polygamists Sound Like Christian Legalists — 19 Comments

  1. Dee,

    I appreciate your reviewing this book. I’m glad you learned so much about Mormonism several years ago and that you are sharing your knowledge here.

  2. Men are to be the “covering” for their wives. So who is the covering for a 60 year old unmarried woman?

    Answer: The pastor is the default “covering” for everyone in the church.

    Also, here’s a link to perfectly illustrate the common heretical tactic of calling their sect “biblical”:

    http://www.BiblicalFamilies.org

  3. shadowspring

    I have to admit that I had a good laugh about the pastor being the covering for every female without a male in her life. Why is it that man needs to seek to put himself into a position of “hierarchy” in just about everything? Wasn’t the the problem in the Garden-wanting to be like God? The disciples also scrimmaged aver which one of them was going to be Christ’s “right hand ” man. So, now we have guys who want to put themselves between women and God so that they at least have some hierarchy-they are over 50% of the human race.

    Hasn’t anyone heard that christ is our covering? Good night, what are they teaching in seminaries today?

  4. Shadowspring

    Now I have heard it all-Christian plural marriages…. Some people are just plain stupid, can’t get around it.

  5. The “covering” doctrine is taught in many SBC churches. It is quite popular on SBC campi. Cindy Kunsman was astounded to find at a conference held at an SBC seminary, where she was speaking, that many young men actually believed they would be answering to God for their wives on J-day. It is that prevelant.

    One wonders what they think the Holy Spirit is for. Or perhaps they think they are the Holy Spirit for their wives.

  6. So, someone explain to me why polygamy is wrong would you? I mean outside of the fact that it is illegal, which is being driven by a combination of misplaced biblical morals and economic concerns which would be difficult to deal with should polygamy be legalized.

    Seriously, isn’t this in the same category as gay marriage? I mean 3 or 4 or 5 consenting adults who want to and are able to share the same husband. If no one objects…where is the problem exactly?

  7. On the grounds of “economic concerns” alone it logically cannot be viewed as right (financial burdens on the family, as well as on society to help fund the very large family which one man is incapable of providing for on his own). On these grounds alone, it stands to reason that it should not be legalized.

    This, in addition to the paternal neglect the chidren will face (emotional / relational disadvantage in that one man is not capable of being a relationally involved father to that many children) makes it unethical.

    Does unethical = sin? I think these people have good motives, so they aren’t out to deliberately hurt anyone.

    Can’t see that it is necessarily sin.

    Just very unwise and definitely counterproductive to a well-running society at large. (And arguably counterproductive to healthy, well-adjusted human beings).

  8. I don’t think the economic argument stands…no one is saying you should be poor ant then look to make a huge family…poor people can do that now without polygamy…that’s a matter of responsibility.

    I think a similar argument could be made for the second point… certainly there are thousands of families if not more where the father works all day maybe weekend and spend little time except maybe dinner with the family…and of course same case for single parents…

  9. Karlton:

    Before I answer your question, would you please let me know if you think there is one truth that is true for all or is it relative; your truth is different than mine?

  10. In short….I think there can be absolute truths depending on the goal. For example I believe if your goal is to produce a flourishing society where all members are treated with dignity and have at a minimum their basic needs met, then certainly there are truths about how to structure society and inter-personal relationships that are better than others…I think those truths should be based on the best that our philosophers, scientists and other academics know about human nature as opposed to a religious text. I also believe that while a “truth” might represent the best that we know at this moment in time, as we learn more, it is subject to change and provide even better guidance toward the type of society we want to live in.

    and that was the “short” answer. :0

  11. Hi Karl

    As usual, your question is interesting. CS Lewis believed in two types of marriages; one for Christians which would be church based and the other for those outside of the faith which would be secular or whatever in origin. He thought it was the epitome of hypocrisy for unbelieving folks to be taking vows in a Christian church when neither had any understanding or intent to follow the Bible in marriage. have little problem with the government providing civil ceremonies to those outside the church.

    If one takes a gander at Lyndon Johnson’s “The Great Society” and the intent of welfare, one would see that welfare was thought to tide people over until they could get on their feet. Unfortunately, it has created a dependency state along with many fatherless families since mothers can have babies and be supported minus the presence of a father.

    I think there is a high likelihood of developing another dependent class of people with legalization of polygamy.Also, it is essentially creating another father deprived group because, no matter how clever, no one father can give attention to 58 children as in the story above. I would say that polygamy is not in the best interests of a society for this reason alone.

    Also, the increased potential for poverty is inherent in such a group. That means society would bear the burden of providing gap services such as food stamps, health care, and other social services that would come at great cost in my estimation.

    Now, on the sin angle of things, within the Christian faith, it is clear that God intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman. that relationship was supposed to model, in a limited way, the relationship between the Father and the Son. Although this is a Christian ideal, there is some sense that it is better for the children that come to the union of a man and woman in secular society as well. There appears to be a correlation between an intact family and greater psychological health of the children.

  12. Hi, Karlton.

    I don’t think you can shoot down the economic argument that easily. The number of dependents polygamy produces is exponentially greater than what a one husband / one wife relationship yields. Which means the burden on society is exponentially greater, especially over time.

    I was anticipating the point about relational disadvantages in single-parent families, which of course are not illegal. And in polygamous families there are plenty of adults around providing parenting (albeit an environment not immune to some unique dysfunctions). So I suppose this isn’t the best argument.

  13. In regard to the economic argument, I realize the potential is there for problems, but I am not so sure that the government should legislate away your right to have whatever kind of union consenting adults want just because it has the “potential” of fiscal hardships. It’s not that much different from the mentality used to justify the seatbelt laws. Hope I didn’t just raise another hot issue there 🙂

  14. Karl
    I think the economic argument is valid. With increased poverty comes increased abuse and crime. Having been a public health nurse, I have seen the consequences of such results. Frankly, if they want to create a polygamous state in which they are independent and will not receive any government funds, then so be it. But not on my dollar, tightwad that I am.

  15. Lydia

    I think there will be some men answering for how they treated their wives and other women on Judgment Day.Just not in the way they imagine, and they do imagine things quite a bit.

  16. I guess we agree to disagree, but at least in this case I am only making a half-hearted defense. I tend to think the same as you and Elastigirl on this one. Maybe this is without substance, but I have the sense that people who are responsible and care for their family are NOT the ones that would want to have more than one wife. I tend to think it would be those who see it as a great scheme to either produce welfare children or send their wives out into the working world, figuring it’ll make the husband rich!

  17. Karl
    As for seatbelt, I believe in the free market regulating these things. If insurers refused to cover those who have been in accidents which caused injuries because they were not wearing seat belts, then a similar result would occur. However, the dadblasted Congress would get involved and insist that they insure everybody, regardless of seatbelt usage and ruin the whole free market thing anyway. It’ll get you coming or going.

  18. PS — I suppose it would be good to relate the discussion to God as described in the Bible (to honor the spirit of the Wartburg Watch), instead of keeping it only in the realm of logic and reason.

    SO…..(actually) logic and reason are good things when they are used for the promotion of health and welfare of human beings. When they are used out of respect for human beings and their dignity and health and welfare. Logic and reason are some of the raw materials of intellect. If there is a God, by definition he created human beings with this potential. To make use of the faculties created by the Creator is honorable and honoring to him.

    OK, there it is.