Mahonri,

            Almost without exception those pundits that are convinced the bigamy statute creates more sociological problems than it solves use the “broad brush” analogy.   What they do not take into consideration is that the “broad brush” analogy works both ways.  If society repeals the bigamy statute it may ease the tension among the benign polygamists but in doing so it gives a free pass to the malignant polygamists.  This paradox is made crystal clear in Polygamy’s Rape of Rachael Strong. Mark Shurtleff’s policy to ignore the bigamy statute gave Jim Harmston, a ruthless predator, a free pass.  James Bond was given a license to kill, Jim Harmston, and men like him, are given license to use malicious religious coercion to sexually ravish young women.  

             I have no problem with decriminalizing polygamy as long as it is replaced with a statute that protects women like Rachael Strong from malicious religious coercion.  At the same time, I do not think that corruptMormon polygamy can be eradicated by legislation or judicial rulings.  The “compensators” (exchanges or rewards) are stronger than the fear of punishment. When the courts, prosecutors and witnesses involved in the prosecution of Warren Jeffs said it was not about religion or polygamy, but abuse, I couldn’t help but chuckle with amusement.  What I was hearing was an attempt to conform to the current “political correct” trend that dictates how we should view religious freedom, equality and privacy.  Very few politicians want to risk being viewed as a racist, bigot or an atheist in a Christian environment.

            The view from outside Mormon polygamy is not the same or as accurate as an objective view from inside.  How Warren Jeffs behaved towards Elissa Wall had everything to do with Mormon polygamy. 

            Wait, you say, there are plenty of women on the inside who share the sentiments of Mark Shurtleff., Principle Voices for example. True, but let’s look at the subjective nurturing of the ladies of Principle Voices and their confederates from Centennial Park and the Kingston Group.

            They never had to do without.  They were the favorite or dominate wives and were in a position of influence with their husband or priesthood.  They did not have to rely on welfare for their sustenance.  Their housing was more than adequate.  They were not under the thumb of a prophet or tyrannically priesthood.  Their living conditions and appearance (garb and cosmetics) are congruent with monogamists.  In the case of Principle Voices they are an ad hoc group consisting of affluent (compared to the average female polygamist) women who were once plural wives.  They are what is called Independent Fundamentalists who are ideologically opposed to organizing.  They are activists defending a holy cause which is rewarding in and of itself.  They are tolerated by but do not represent the organized groups.  There power is in their courage and autonomy not their conformity to Mormon fundamentalist principles.

            Polygamy is a highly charged, sociological and political issue.  As Richard Dawkins pointed out, “consciousness freed the human species from the tyranny of genes.”  According to some social and neurological scientists the human mind cannot seem to transcend the axiom that the human race is the center of the universe and that the universe was created by a god.

            There are millions of people who need a God to make their life more meaningful.  But those who worship the God of the Bible can’t agree on what He is like.  Islamic Muslims can’t even agree among themselves, nor can the adherents to Judaism, Christianity or Mormonism.  And I submit that among the millions that do not adhere to any religion or believe in the biblical God, the majority of them ironically believe that there is some universal force or supernatural essence that is greater than ourselves and under the right circumstances we can tap into that essence.  Something inside our consciousness whispers that our presence on earth is not without purpose.

            Social scientists make a compelling case that religion, or a belief in a god is learned behavior.  I think nature and nurturing is where the most success will be in attacking religious abuse which will result in a battle between the rational and irrational.  The various Mormon “profits” will take whatever measure they can to preserve their power, which means censoring those who dare listen to guys like me.  The contest will be somewhat like Glen Beck taking on the subversive forces of socialism or free speech taking on political correctness.