So I was talking to a friend today and she asked me about the Le Baron thing and why there were mormons down there in a compound in the first place. Explained the polygamy and she said that explained why they didn't want to just move back to the US. She then asked me where the hell all the men were. Why all those women and kids were down there running around by themselves. I explained that I was sure that most had wives and businesses in different places and may not be there much yadda yadda. She then said something I think is quite insightful.

So, they kind of collect the women don't they.

Well said and very true.

Susan I/S Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, they kind of collect the women don't they.

From what I've gleaned from my polygamist sister, women form a "temporal" structure that a man has "spiritual" authority over.

He is like a head of state that usually lets the women run things. It seems like a pattern. His collecting only happens at their highest levels where priesthood authority can cash in on getting young women into their beds.

"Kind of"? Did Joe Smith and Brigham Young "kind of" sleep with hundreds of members of their flock? Including very young girls?

"hundreds of members"

I think you are mixing them up with David and Solomon.

They only temple-married the “good girls”.

"Friend, did you know that brown people have been living in terror of these brutal gangs for decades, north to south, coast to coast, a nation living in terror? Why do you all of a sudden care about it when it is blond females?"

I don't know if these, more recent, killings have been covered in the US legacy press:

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/11/07/10-dead-after-cartel-gunmen-attack-in-juarez-many-victims-innocent-factory-workers/

While searching for coverage elsewhere (didn't see any), I came across this shocking 20008 article about the on-going murder of young Mexican women and teen girls:

https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/other-side-ciudad-ju%C3%A1rez-femicide-story

As Stalin reportedly said of the Ukrainian genocide, “If only one man dies of hunger, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that’s only statistics.”



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2019 04:07PM by caffiend.

From what I know about this group in Mexico, this sounds like an internal matter for Mexico, since the people killed are technically "Mexican", like red-blooded Mexicans that have relatives in the US, and they travel to and from the States to visit.

Since these people basically "descend" from Americans, many feel they are. I do not.

That all said, no one deserves having that happen to them or their family members.

Funny the FLDS in So. Ut and in Arizona are not looked upon favorably in the press nor w/mainstream mormons, but there is more expressed understanding w/the group in Mexico who are doing the same thing, maybe w/o the God-worship that Jeffs had and demanded.

Not so much that, as wondering why you would voluntarily live in a dangerous place when you have other options. Every article reported them as being "U.S. citizens." Last I checked, Utah would be a much safer option. Anyone who goes head-to-head with a drug cartel and thinks they are going to win is nuts.

Not knowing this for a fact, but I believe they have powerful "saints in exile" myths and dogma, just as CoJCoLdSs venerate their handcart forebears. So it's going to be psychologically tough to abandon what they've built up there--which is considerable, in temporal terms also.

But people do flee persecution. Consider all those who fled across the Iron Curtain, the Vietnamese boat people, Plymouth Brethren, the mythic Nephi & Co. (I'm only half sarcastic there.)

I'm of the opinion that polygamy will be legalized in the US, primarily because of the sexual revolution. But the religiously motivated will benefit thereby. A possible scenario: if there is more bloodshed, these groups could relocate in the US, and enjoy a de facto tolerance of polygamy, while a de jure legalization develops. The tragedy would also provide them a certain moral and psychological gravitas. The LeBarons and others would then declare themselves vindicated on the basis of prophecy, persecution and martyrdom, "proving" themselves "right" and the SLC group apostate.

They might even start attracting establishment Mormons, which would put the CoJCoLdS in a pickle!

To avoid misunderstanding, I'm not in favor of any of this, from the murders to the normalization of polygamous groups. But I think something like this is, at least possible..

This may be wrong, but I see things moving in the opposite direction. 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago there were virtually no arrests and convictions for polygamy, especially in the Mormon regions. The authorities are enforcing those laws much more aggressively than in the past.

Polyamory, yes, that is gaining acceptance. But my guess is that there will be more, rather than less, emphasis on protecting children--and that augers ill for Mormon-style polygamy.

First I acknowledge your ear is closer to the ground than mine. But I've followed the sexual revolution from the beatniks, Stonewall and "sex, provided it's in a 'meaningful relationship'" days. From the earliest days the trend has been to ever-increasing permissiveness.

Legalized polygamy is only a matter of time. All the moral-relativism shibboleths will be brought to "bare:" "People do it anyway." "You can't legislate morality." "Just because some people abuse it (do it 'wrong') doesn't mean it IS wrong." Etc. What has transpired in Utah is de facto legalization: people are prosecuted only if there are other crimes or conspicuous abuse. (Tip o' the hat to Summer there!) We saw this as de facto tolerance of marijuana led to political acceptance to full legalization.

Now, my proviso: the Supreme Court is going conservative, and another such jurist changes the legal landscape considerably. But even with a rock-solid conservative/constitutionalist majority, I think they would kick this issue to the states, which would then become a patchwork of prohibition, regulation, and legalization.

I stand by my forecast, that increased bloodshed in Mexico may well coincide with growing tolerance, and legalization of polygamy north of the border. Last proviso: the battery in my lighted pen died.

I think marijuana is not on point. In a society that permits alcohol, there is no medical or philosophical case against weed.

Polygamy is a different matter. Before addressing that nuance, however, I will take issue with you on the situation in Mormon America. Historically the church strongly discouraged prosecution of polygamists both because they opposed the dilution of freedom of religion and because they didn't want the scrutiny that would ensue for SLC as well as the practicing polygamists. What changed was that society and the elected authorities gradually moved out of the penumbra of church authority. It was the civil powers that decided, against implicit LDS wishes, to go after the Short Creek people and Warren Jeffs and the others. That tendency--greater prosecutorial and judicial independence--runs counter to your argument. What happened is not de facto legalization of polygamy but de facto enforcement of the laws.

With an additional tip of the hat to summer, I really don't care who sleeps with whom. So as uncomfortable as it makes me feel personally, I would not stand in the way of social acceptance of polyamory; to a certain extent I am merely proposing the use of a formal word for practices that are already widespread. I wouldn't even stand in the way of polygamy in the strict marital sense.

What matters to me is the children. Anything that comprises abuse of kids should be prevented with all condign means. Child molestation, child marriage, physical or psychological mistreatment: there should be no tolerance for any of that. If regularizing existing relationships to eliminate the stigma and permit closer monitoring of such things resulted in better protection of children, as has happened with common law marriage and other atypical patterns, I'd favor the legalization of polygamy. So I guess that puts me in the category of people that summer describes: I don't care about the formal terminology but only about the effects on the young.

I'd note also that even if society is becoming more accepting of unconventional romantic relationships, tolerance of child abuse is diminishing quite rapidly. That is a trend I find encouraging and where I would put the emphasis. Polygamy strikes me as something that should be considered within that framework.

I am opposed to polygamy because I find it inherently harmful to women and children. I see no value in it. And in a society prone to divorce, the aftermath of a divorce in a polygamous marriage would be nightmarish.

However, as it stands, polygamy is not prosecuted in the U.S. unless another, serious crime is also present. I am simply observing that the members of the Le Baron clan who wish to practice polygamy could probably do so in the U.S. as long as they are generally law abiding.

> As it stands, polygamy is not prosecuted
> in the U.S. unless another, serious crime is also
> present.

There are a few polygamist families who have gone on reality shows and revealed their domestic situations only then to be prosecuted. So I don't agree that "open and notorious" polygamy is tolerated.


------------------
> I am opposed to polygamy because I find it
> inherently harmful to women and children. I see no
> value in it.

This is a very important point and it is why I initially suggested that I am fundamentally opposed to polygamy and its legalization. Having for idiosyncratic reasons studied Islamic polygamy as well as the Mormon version in considerable depth, I share your concern that the system is inherently abusive. You could, however, say that about a number of de facto systems that today's society accepts; and it is at least conceivable that there are support mechanisms that might render certain parental arrangements feasible.

But yes, the question of child welfare strikes me as the critical one. And my impulse is to believe that polygamy is by nature, and perhaps inevitably, abusive.

What if you were to learn that polygamy as a pre-human condition contributed to our evolving into the creature we are and would not have happened without it?

Just because it may have been done eons ago,or is still practiced in some exotic culture somewhere in the contemporary world,
and "works" doesn't make it either right, or viable for us in 1st world cultures.

Yes, like rape. It isn't something people like to think about - our animal origins. We still are animals. The "wise" ones.

But empirical reality does not imply normative value. My family was Mormon; long ago my family was polygamist; I am sure there are countless criminals in my family tree if we went far enough back. The presence of such things in my past does not imply that I should live like that.

I'm not saying that.

My question was merely how would unflattering information be processed by you about our evolutionary past?

The audio book I'm listening to (one of many) claims many modern human ancestral groups practiced polygamy. I thought what if like unto Bonobos homosexuality developed in a variety of environments where males and females having no fixed reproductive period would be selected for in non-breeding situations?

https://www.nps.gov/articles/life-of-a-wolf.htm

Rape isn't bad or good in evolutionary terms but females evolved to have a bodily response.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a9620593/sexual-assault-rape-lubrication-reaction-research/

Kori seems much affected by the different "breeds" of humans. I was curious about your reaction to human skeletons in our pre-historic closet.

I have no problem with human origins. I accept every bit of additional insight science provides, subject to the probability that that insight remains tentative and partial, without moral judgment.

History is history. Morality, or how we should live here and now, is a separate matter. The differences between them do not bother me at all.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> History is history. Morality, or how we should
> live here and now, is a separate matter. The
> differences between them do not bother me at all.

They sometimes bother me. My wife teaches children who have many half siblings at the same school. Their mother is the most important person in the world and it appears they are loved. In polygamy the same might be true. One parent provides enough for the children.

I wonder at times if our evolution contributes to this being a fact if it is? The abuse is never okay. I was raised with two neglectful parents. Who am I to judge? But in the past many adults were around the children. Our modern society's insistence on the traditional family might be just as prone to something not really a good "morally" okay environment.

Agrarian societies' morals always take precedence and I don't know if they should.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kori seems much affected by the different "breeds"
> of humans. I was curious about your reaction to
> human skeletons in our pre-historic closet.

Kori is either both dead and/or alive,
depending upon your perspective

But Schrodinger's Cat is right here
in this little box, see?

But it just seems obvious to me that human races are a lot like types of cats.

There are Lions and cheetahs in Africa,
Tigers in Asia,
Forest Cats in Europe
Bobcats, cougars and Lynx in America
Panthers in South America
there are 36 different kinds of wild cats.
Many can interbreed and create hybrids, which is where we get all the varieties of house cats.

Africans are like lions or Cheetahs,
Europeans are like Forest Cats,
Asians are like tigers.
South Americans are like panthers
and Americans are like house cats.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am opposed to polygamy because I find it
> inherently harmful to women and children.
===============================

However, I am opposed to polygamy because I cannot imagine the circumstance of having more than one woman mad at me, at the same time

My grandmother left western Russia at age sixteen, when things were getting increasingly violent there. Within the next few years, she sent for her two sisters who were also in their mid-teens when they left.

I do understand about roots, and I took that into account. The Le Barons have prosperous farms there along with a long history.

But personally, I am nothing if not prudent. The Le Barons have now lost more than ten family members to drug cartel violence, and had others kidnapped/threatened. I don't care how deep your roots are, there comes a point where you need to act in the best long-term interests of your family.

I don't think polygamy will ever be legalized in the U.S. However, polygamous families have been able to live as they wish here for a very long time *as long* as they are not breaking other laws, such as committing fraud with Federal dollars or marrying off underage girls.

I spent a summer in Guadalajara as an exchange student about 50 years ago, and it was a delightful experience. We never felt unsafe.

How sad, that the greed for drugs fuels the bloody cartels, and they have turned a very nice country into a crime-ridden nightmare.

Elderolddog, I think you were in Mexico about the same time I was. Aside from the mission part, did you enjoy the country?

He loved it. He can never stop talking about it.

He even calls me his cuate--which, for a variety of reasons, is not literally accurate!

I enjoyed Guadalajara. But then I'm a raging optimist who wants and expects things to go smoothly. It's always a bit of a shock when they don't!

Have I ever mentioned that a couple of Ervil's sons visited Cuautla, Morelos when I was a brand new Senior Comp there, in probably October of 1966? I probably haven't, because by doing so, I have to admit that I haven't the slightest recollection of our interaction with them.

I can only assume that they were there preaching their version of polygamist mormonism. If so, they were no great shakes as preachers, which I base on they're having made no impression on me. As to why they'd be drawn down to the State of Morelos from their base in Northern Mexico, I presume it was because the church had, at that point, been in Cuautla for over 40 years. On paper, the town at that time was 1/3 Catholic, 1/3 mormon and 1/3 evangelistic. But attendance was maybe 100 a week.

So while I can say I 'met' LeBaronites in 1966, they made zero impression on me. I think I knew the two young men's full names at that time, but the years have robbed me of their first names and any details about meeting with them, other than that they were 'right' and we were 'wrong'. And that we scoffed...



I shall again return to one of my favorite themes: Mexico is only as corrupt as the people who run it. 98.6% of Mexico's politicians are in it for the money. Corruption has always been big in Mexico, basically, because those not in power don't really care about the current administration's corruption because it's how THEY intend to operate when THEY get into power. People wait patiently for their turn at the trough.



It's the profit margin on illegal drugs that is so irresistible! And that margin exists because Americans will pay ridiculous asking prices for their illegal drugs!

I am not against any level of American government making a tidy profit importing and selling drugs, thereby stopping the flow of money from 'here' to 'there'. Yes, with cheap drugs a number of immediate and unfortunate actions would result, but it would make rush hour traffic a bit lighter and thus more bearable.

I believe the two young men you met were Joel and Ervil LeBaron.

They were asked to serve a mission by the church that had excommunicated their parents.

Ervil wasn't religious back then. He was more interested in playing basketball then converting anyone.

Later, when he found out how to become a god, or at least convince others you had done so, he thought religion was okay.

I think Joel and Ervil were the only two Lebaron boys that went on a mission, and they went together, so it must have been them.

Nah...it's because they are US citizens. Not because one woman was blond. One of them was a very beautiful Hispanic looking female, and it's just as tragic that this black haired beautiful woman is gone, as it is for the blonde woman.

Mootman..this isn't about racism. We all know the cartels have kept Mexicans living in fear, it's just that it coming closer and closer to America. The US doesn't want to interfere in the policing of this great nation. In the past Mexico has been a great and prosperous country. I think it will be again, and if they need help, the US is ready to help. They need only to ask us. Mexico will be a great nation again. The people there are beautiful, talented, and prosperous people. As they say, it only takes one or two bad apples, and the cartels are as bad as it gets.

Yeah, they are (and were) collectors like the people who collect cats. The welfare of the individuals becomes secondary to the interest of the collector.

Brigham Young was a collector -- he had something like 55 "wives." I remember reading Ann Eliza Young's account where she said that BY basically told her that she was on her own in terms of spousal support. So how would the "marriage" possibly benefit her, in an age when married women generally didn't work, but took care of their homes and families instead?

And how deeply hoodwinked/brainwashed did a woman have to be to think that was okay?

Exactly.

Why do a lot of them look similar and have blond hair?

Inbreeding.

Certain types of female are preferred: blonde, slender, and so on. These are sought out more aggressively by power males, and hence profit more than their "fair share" of the gene pool.

Something needs to be done about the injustice of pulchritudinous disparity in these population groups!

stillangry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do a lot of them look similar and have blond
> hair?

What's wrong with blonde hair? Did you ever think some of them dye it?

If you're living in the desert and have light hair, the sun will bleach it for you.

Yeah, the kids that have blond hair do not color it. It is natural.

First one: My sister-in-law was daughter to the head of the Allred polygamy group. Her uncle was a homeopathic doctor with a large thriving practice. Many years ago the head of the Le Barons let them know that all of the Allred group must send tithes to the Le Barons. They refused which infuriated the Le Baron leader. He gave guns to two of his followers and sent them to Utah where they stormed the Allred doctor's office and shot him dead. They were prosecuted and jailed. My sister-in-law mourned him and was saddened that her doctor of choice couldn't be there for her nine childbirths.

The other experience: I grew up in a polygamy compound north of Ogden. The prophet lost favor with many of the followers and he left town in disgrace. My parents decided he was not the One Mighty and Strong and they investigated many other groups in search of the one truest prophet.

One group included the Le Barons. My father and my brother who was about seven drove to Mexico to their compound. My father went into the leader's home and my brother stayed outside and talked to the other children running around the yard. He sent them inside to tell the adults he was hungry. Someone eventually brought out a tin plate of beans and a spoon for him. My father decided not to join that group and they drove home.

The Le Barons were crackpots and could be very abusive to females and violent to their members and to outsiders. Still, that doesn't mean anyone has a right to murder the wives and children as happened recently. How horrific.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/09/2019 06:33AM by Cheryl.

"The Le Barons were crackpots and could be very abusive to females and violent to their members and to outsiders."

Funny how I/we need to go to "alternate" sources of information to get the whole story. Right now, the MSM is not reporting this aspect. Thx Cheryl

Most of the legacy media coverage I've looked at reduce the LaBaron group to "a Mormon offshoot," "Americans of dual citizenship," and other euphemisms.

Also,interesting how NBC killed the Weinstein Story. Interesting coincidence how the mass media manage to overlook so many stories about the sexual exploitation of women.

The MSM has been reporting this for 50 years. I remember when Dr Allred was shot and killed. His killer was a woman who lived about 9 miles down the road from me in Carrolton, TX. Also around that time one LeBaron brother had another brother killed.

It's not like the LeBarons ever had a good, or even neutral reputation. The Kingstons don't have a good reputation either. They do not appear to be as murderous, but they basically come across as a religious organized crime family.

Also, there has been a ton of MSM coverage of the polygamist group in Bountiful/Cranbrook, B.C. Canada. Their legal travails are regularly in the Canadian media, and some of it gets covered in the US, especially Utah, where they have a connection to the Jeffs group, if i recall correctly..

IMO, polygamy is nothing more than an okee dokee to mess around passed on down from JS. Whether it be the Rulon Jeffs group, Kingstons, or any other group, it's the women and children who are abused and suffer. Naturally, TSCC keeps silent about it because it's still part of the LDS doctrine: D&C 132. The temple ceremonies are all about agreeing to live the polygamous life, whether now or in the next life.

In one report, El Chapo's Sinaola cartel paraded an armed convoy through what was regarded as a safe, conservative state of Guanajuato. It included vehicles with flashing blue (police) lights, indicating that they consider themselves "the law."

Some people have termed Mexico "a failed state." Perhaps feudalism is the better term, as robber-barons carve out fiefdoms to control, to rule and exploit with their henchmen.

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In one report, El Chapo's Sinaola cartel paraded
> an armed convoy through what was regarded as a
> safe, conservative state of Guanajuato. It
> included vehicles with flashing blue (police)
> lights, indicating that they consider themselves
> "the law."
>
> Some people have termed Mexico "a failed state."
> Perhaps feudalism is the better term, as
> robber-barons carve out fiefdoms to control, to
> rule and exploit with their henchmen.

Sadly there is a lot of truth in this. In a lot of places, the government has almost no control, but the same goes for parts of the USA I suppose.

Every time Mexico tried to improve itself, it got kicked down. It wouldn't surprise me if police and politicians were in the criminals' pockets.

It's sad an incident like this has to occur to highlight the collapse.

Some do work.
Many of them claim foodstamps and welfare checks which also go to the husbands. When they can drain "the Beast," it's a win for them.

I'm sure the group is not nice, but it is still a tragedy which should never have happened. It seems to be daily life in many parts of Mexico, sadly.

It turns out that DW and sister had no idea that there were all those spin-off groups out there. I already talked about DW's feelings about them using the name "Mormon." But it was sadder to see that--apparently--most active LDS people have no idea about all the offshoots, what they believe, and why. I believe that no one is as ignorant about their own religion as Mormons. No one. I guess it's what happens when you hear everything through a filter, and trust only that filter.

Is there any connection to the Romney Family? They used to live there.

The Le Barons have always embraced the most extreme and violent tenants of mormonism. The Big Love TV series copied that group to point out how mean and evil a splinter group could be.

The LeBarons and the Romneys both moved to Colonia Juarez -- the Romneys before the manifesto, the LeBarons after.

Even though Colonia Juarez was settled to provide a place for polygamists so they could keep on being polygamists, there came a time when polygamy was not cool in Colonia Juarez.

That is when the LeBarons came to town. They were outcasts. Not invited to birthday parties, not asked to hold church callings. Unfriended. They were an attractive family, intelligent, good looking and hard working. But a bit unstable and high strung.

So they started their own church. And the rest is such convoluted history even I can't keep up with.

Oh, and my own family, the Redds, settled there pre-manifesto because the feds were pestering them in Cedar City. One wife in Utah, one wife in Mexico seemed to be the solution. Cumbersome, expensive but it kept my g-grandpa out of jail. (just one Great, cause my ancestresses kept having babies into their 40s.)

In Southeast Utah, San Juan County, the federal marshal made it clear that he would NOT go after polygamists. He had enough on his plate. The polygamists could all stay put and relax.

But in SW Utah, St. George and Cedar City, polygamist families were fair game. So off they went to Colonia Juarez -- the Romneys and the Redds.

And eventually the LeBarons.

The adult males are supposed to do most of the paid work. I think the women have to stay at home and raise kids, and do not get paid for it. The money comes from the men, not the women or children.

Sometimes the men force them to work and the husband often takes the money.

I know that the women have managed motels. They make the kids help clean, make up the beds, and do ground keeper duties.

I also know of plyg women who do crafts and sell their work at fairs and to boutiques.

The men usually can't earn enough to pay for multiple wives and fifty or sixty children. They expect everyone to work. Only the most favored wife gets to sit back and benefit from these enterprises.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2019 03:36PM by Cheryl.

I had a sibling that lived two doors down from a brother (son?) of Warren Jeffs, in east bench Sandy, UT. He had left the religious group, but still had two wives and 4 children. They lived in adjacent houses. The two wives didn't get along that well. The husband said he didn't believe in polygamy anymore, but he had two families, so what was he going to do? He felt he was responsible to raise/support both of them.