posted on May 20, 2001 12:44:14 PM new
Not in my worst nightmare can I imagine having 5 wives and 29 children; the man obviously wanted to be arrested and sentenced.
posted on May 20, 2001 12:45:02 PM new
MORMONS do not practice nor do we condone polygamy. In the past yes-
Today NO WAY Excommunication.
Most of the Polygamists belong to the RLDS or other apostate groups.
I can promise you no MORMONS practice polygamy, not in public or in Secret.
Many in Utah do, but they are not MORMONS.
posted on May 20, 2001 12:51:17 PM new
I am a mormon and I live in Utah. I take great exception to being called a "disgusting cult". Though people may strongly disagree with our beliefs I can only believe this kind of statement is made out of ignorance. Mormons do not practice polygamy anymore not in the open and not in secret and the story told ^ there about the prominant Mormon who married off his 13 year old to his brother and then beat her was true however this man is NOT a mormon let alone a prominant one. He is a member of what is called here as the Kingston clan...a truly dispicable group of men who really should be prosecuted for all their abuse.
As far as Tom Green goes I think what the state did to him is disgusting. He has a right to practice his religion same as anyone else. He was the SOLE support for his family and they did NOT live on welfare.
After being kicked out of a salt lake city suburb for living his beliefs he moved his family out to the west desert where there is truly nothing. His cabin burned down in the which a three year old son was killed. The family had a hard time getting back on their feet and took welfare for 10 months in 1999.
But now through the brilliance of an arrogant DA we will have 29 children we get to pay for on welfare..plus 5 woman who have never been in the workforce trying to find what minimum wage jobs they may. 5 single mothers now with 29 kids between them with no father....I, for one, feel safer knowing Tom Green is off the street. He was not legally married to any one of these woman but the state applied comman law with his 1st wife and then got him on cohabitation with the others...do you have any idea how many people cohabitat in this state????
I do not agree with his beliefs but it really makes me sick that he can't be left alone when he is not hurting anyone.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on May 20, 2001 12:56:56 PM new
I am curious though as to why polygamy is outlawed anyway. There are many religions in the world that practice it. Just on the first ammendment alone shouldn't they be free to practice their religion same as anyone else?
posted on May 20, 2001 01:18:02 PM new
I just read that he makes $29,000 a year in his employment
It wasn't co-habit ---it was common law.
In most courts of law---common law marriages have just as much rights and legalities as legal marriages.
---in some Africian religions the practice of female circumcision is part of their faith. If members of that religion lived in the USA--should they be allowed to continue that practice??
posted on May 20, 2001 01:24:31 PM new
My husband and I along with our two children moved in with my sister and her 2 children while we were making some major additions onto our home. My sisters husband traveled and was away most of the time we were living there. My sister and I were both expecting our third babies at the time.
My husband has always said, that is the closest he EVER wants to come to Polygamy. He says living with two pregnant women and 4 small children, Not a good way for a man to live. Needless to say he was working very hard to get our house finished so we could move back in.
The following posts were especially informative and helpful to me in
understanding this topic and I want to thank each of you so very much!!! Helen
Sulyn 1950
To judge entire groups of people by the deeds of a relative few is unfair.
I dare say you could probably come up with a Baptist that perhaps beat his wife, or a Methodist that was an alcoholic or a Catholic that had a wife and 10 kids and a "girlfried" or two, maybe even a kid or two on the side. Would you then say that Baptist are "wife-beaters", Methodist are alcoholics or that Catholics are immoral????
I truly find it hard to think of the people in these stories as "Mormons". They have left the true Church keeping very little but the name. You would be hard pressed to find them as active members of any Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that I know of and I have been a member for 25+ years. I assure you I do not believe I belong to a "disgusting cult".
dregen
Non Christians presumably view orthodox Christian revelations and claims as equally absurd. How a distinction is drawn between them and the Mormon church escapes me. Any finger-pointing is therefore misguided.
The Catholic Church used to castrate little soprano boys. I'm sure all religions have practices in their past that they've since abandoned. I believe calling anyone else's religion "digusting" is digusting.
sulyn1950
I sincerely believe each of us has the freedom to believe or not believe anything we choose. It is part of our free agency.
To say that there are no flaws in humanity, government or organized religon would be naive. I am not wise enough to have all the answers, nor do I believe I ever will be on this side of the grave. So all I can do is my best and try hard not to judge. We will each come to the truth in "due" time. Who knows, maybe we will discover we missed the point... In that case, I sure hope we get points for trying!
Timptech
MORMONS do not practice nor do we condone polygamy. In the past yes-
Today NO WAY Excommunication.
Most of the Polygamists belong to the RLDS or other apostate groups.
I can promise you no MORMONS practice polygamy, not in public or in Secret.
Many in Utah do, but they are not MORMONS.
oddish4
I am curious though as to why polygamy is outlawed anyway. There are many religions in the world that practice it. Just on the first ammendment alone shouldn't they be free to practice their religion same as anyone else?
sulyn1950
"POlygamy between consenting adults is not acting upon someone else contrary to their will."
"many young girls forced into a marriage may disagree with you"
Young girls are not adults and therefore should not/could not be consenting. It's not the same thing.
I think that things need to be taken in context. I was married at 15 years old. I am now almost 30 and still married to the same man happily. Though many people were against my getting married so young it was indeed the correct choice for me. So I don't think you can universaly say getting married under 18 is wrong.
However
I strongly believe that should they make polygamy legal but make it illegal to marry under 18 there would be much more protection for these girls who are forced into it. I don't agree with that at all but at this time those groups are so far under ground there is little hope of knowing these girls exist much less the abuse they are suffering.
Polygamy does not = abuse but it is ripe for abuse to happen because they have to keep their religious views so quiet. Let them out in the open and there will be a greater chance to stop the abuse that does go on.
My issue with the Tom Green trial is the govenor signed a bill a few years ago taking off mandatory sentanceing for child molesters because he said families need to be kept intact..hence putting the abusive father back into the home....what a pile of crap. Take Tom Green away from his kids whom he does not abuse but put the rapist father back in the home to keep it intact...ICK! The morals are all screwed up here.
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on May 20, 2001 04:10:33 PM new
Well, I've followed this case with fascination. I think it will be an interesting argument for upholding the notion of the separation of church and state, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the ACLU become involved. Some random thoughts, partially inspired by some of the posts above:
I don't see how this man could have been convicted of bigamy, since he apparently was legally married (in the eyes of the state) to only one of the women, and co-habiting with the others.
So he has children by several women. Plenty of men of other denominations are in exactly the same situation. (Nothing like meeting your late husband's *other* kids, whom you never knew existed and who are the same ages as yours, at his funeral. Happened to a lady I know.)
The concept of common-law marriage doesn't apply here, as that requires that both parties be legally free to marry. (Just went over this one with my attorney.) Green is already legally married to one of the women. The others can't be common-law wives.
The Mormon Church tends to be excluded from the perception of "mainstream" Christian belief and practice just as Orthodox Christians, Copts (both Catholic and Orthodox), and so on are often ignored by western (Catholic and Protestant) Christians. I'm admittedly an outsider on this one, but I don't see how this behavior by western Christians makes any of the other Christians less Christian, or not Christian.
I understand that mainstream Mormons do not feel that Green is a Mormon. I'm not saying he's a Mormon (I don't know what he is), but I think the media labeling him as a Mormon may have contributed to his being charged and subsequently convicted. The jury selection process must have been one for the books.
I don't understand the state's interest in this case. If he's a Mormon, isn't this a matter of religious law rather than civil law? (After all, he's only legally married to one of the women, presumably he's "living in sin" with the others.) If he's not a Mormon, then it's not even a matter of religious law, is it?
I shudder to think whose out-of-the-mainstream religious practices will be next.
posted on May 20, 2001 04:13:38 PM new
I only hear about polygamy as it involves a MAN with multiple wives. According to my dictionary, polygamy is any multiple partner marriage so a woman could be a ploygamist and have multiple husbands.
Kind of interesting. I could have a rich husband, a young stud-muffin, a "sensitive, caring" kind to talk to, and a man who loves to cook to make all my meals! Mmmmm...
I'd like it if I could find someone to do the laundry.
posted on May 20, 2001 05:20:47 PM newI shudder to think whose out-of-the-mainstream religious practices will be next.
I agree with this statement and I think it is cause for concern.
I really don't understand the connection to Mormonism with this case aside from it took place in Utah and Mormons used to practice polygamy. It really boils down to (in my opinion) the governor and his DA brother (who prosecuted this case) are idiots with much more of their pride involved in this than in trying to uphold the law. If they were concerned with upholding the law they would be going after people like the Kingstons with so much documented abuse it is pathetic and not some peaceful guy who lives in the desert.
I don't understand the state's interest in this case. If he's a Mormon, isn't this a matter of religious law rather than civil law? (After all, he's only legally married to one of the women, presumably he's "living in sin" with the others.) If he's not a Mormon, then it's not even a matter of religious law, is it?
This is where they got him on co habitation. In Utah it is illegal to be married to one person and cohabitat with another. It is also illegal to cohabitate if you aren't married, to commit adultry and fornication but I have never seen those prosecuted you would have to arrest half the state.
Problem is he wasn't co habitiating with any of them. He lives in his own trailer while they live in separate trailers. A technicality I realize but that's what they nailed him on anyway was a technicality.
As a tax payer in Utah I am more than a bit upset that the state just added 29 more people to the welfare rolls and put a man in jail for possibly 25 years (That we now have to support while in jail) for a crime like this. While at the same time we are letting some rapists go free for overcrowding.
posted on May 20, 2001 05:35:45 PM new
Who knew there were so many Mormons around here [waving hi!]
With regard to the fact that many religions in the world practice polygamy, in many of those religions [and countries where the religions are practiced], women have basically no rights and are treated like chattel. Men can get a divorce simply by declaring tha marriage void, and the woman can then be tossed out on the street. But if a woman is unfaithful or wants out of the marriage, she can legally be killed.
Again, I don't have a problem with the THEORY of polygamy, but I think the way it usually ends up being PRACTICED merits making it illegal.
As far as "convenient" revelations, I agree that they can certainly seem that way. Of course, you could also see them as "necessary" revelations, in the sense that the Lord told the church leadership what neded to be done in order to keep the church alive. The bottom line, though, is that it comes down to a matter of faith, plain and simple. If you believe that the church is led by divinely inspired leaders, it doesn't matter how "convenient" their revelations are. If you don't believe they are men of God, on the other hand, you won't believe that ANY of their "revelations" came from God, regardless of the content and timing of them.
To be honest, at this point in my life I think that ANYBODY who claims to have received any revelation from God on any topic whatsoever is either lying or deluded, and that includes all religions since the dawn of recorded history, from Isaiah being told that the Messiah would be named "Emmanuel" to Jim Jones telling his followers that God wanted them to drink the poisoned Kool-aid. Every religion preahces that they know somethiong the rest of the world doesn't, and it's awfully hypocritical to single out one religion for ridicule. Better to judge a religion by the good works it inspires its followers to perform, rather than quibbling over who has the "truth" and who is going to Hell for having "false beliefs".
Remember what they say -- when your pointing your finger at somebody, your other three fingers are pointing back at you....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on May 20, 2001 05:43:24 PM new
Hello Oddish - Great to see you posting here again. You've been missed.
I just read that Tom Green's family was paid $75,000.00 welfare for 18 of his 29 children between the years of 1995 to 2000. If what I've read is true, how can you say he was their sole support and they did not live on welfare? Conflicting reports?
timptech - I'd also like to ask you a question please. Aren't Mormans and the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints the same? Reason I ask is that you and others have stated that Green isn't Morman. But he professes to be. He has been quoted as saying he is a fundamentalist morman. He believes he follows the original Morman teachings and that those who have gone against the original church preachings (ie: no long practice polygamy) are hypocrits because their founders were. Am I confused?
If all that he received to support 18 children over a 5 year period
was 75,000, I think that it would be safe to say that he was their
sole support...that would be a little over 800.00 per child, per year...
I believe the answer to the second question is yes.
posted on May 20, 2001 06:12:36 PM new
I don't know Helen. Today on one of the sites I was reading, out of the same five years, he made close to $2,500.00 for three of those years, 20 some thousand another (maybe the one Zazzie was referring to) and $47,000.00 for the fifth. Not in that order, just from memory. Not a very good amount to care for himself, 5 wives and 29 children.
My point was to ask oddish is she felt this article about the law-suit wasn't correct. States don't sue to get welfare benefits back, when they are obtained legally.
The Dali Lama was here in Salt Lake a few weeks ago and in one of his talks he said
" If everyone in the world would just practice the religion they are in the world would be a better place"
I thought that was a pretty good statement. No sense fussing over the shortcomings of any religion or set of beliefs for that matter. Focus on the positive.
HI Linda K
It's great to see you again too
The information I have is from local news reports and the words of the Green family themselves who have been very open with the local media and spoken on the news several times.
The state is going after him for the welfare payments, wic benefits and social security benefits his wives collected for 10 months in 1999 following several Bad luck incidents. The social security benefits are for 2 of his children..one with severe brain damage and another who is menatlly retarded. They did not live on welfare they collected it for 10 months to get back on their feet. Such a thing could happen to any family no matter how many kids they have. The way I understand it is if a man and his family need food assistance they take into acount how many people he is supporting and his income and base the benefits on that. Tom Green however being married legally to none of them when the state gives support they automatically go after the man for repayment. If he had been able to legally claim each of them as his dependants he would have qualified no problem at all.
I know it seems odd giving the amount of money he makes to fathom that he could support them all without the benefit of welfare but easily understood if you are familiar of their surroundings. He lives in the west desert literally the middle of nowhere. He owns the land they live on and they live in these little trailors which aren't much. They do not live a lifestyle most people live and extras are not something they get. The wives also have little at home jobs which bring in a small amount of money to the family.
As to your second question yes mormons are the same as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which is the correct name of the church. Green does believe he is a Mormon in the fundamental sense but he believes the main body of the church such as it is now were the ones to go astray and not him..hence he would not consider himself to belong to the same religion I do.
Fuzzy
I agree with you in principal. I don't think it is a good thing for 13 year olds to be getting married and pregnant. I don't think it is a godly thing in any sense of the word. This is the main reason I think they need to change the laws so they can get to these kids to help them instead of everything being so underground and secret there is no chance of helping them.
In the instance of Tom Green he did marry a 13 year old. Both he and She claim there was NO sex involved until she was 15. This may seem strange to other people ..why get married if you aren't going to have sex but it is a common practice amongst polygamists.
15 in my opinion is still too young to consent to a polygamist marriage and if he had just married her I would say get him for it. But this girl is 30 years old now. They have been together for 17 years. They have kids and a family together. She is happy with him and very outspoken not one of these quiet mouse woman she's on the news all the time speaking out. After 17 years I don't think bringing a charge against him for this is doing any good at all and hurting far more people than it would help.
posted on May 20, 2001 07:37:50 PM new
He is not a Mormon. He may have been at one time but I can assure you if he ever was a member of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" He has been excommunicated.
If he is a reformed or fundamentalist mormon that is a name they have given themselves to distinguish themselves from the Original or "true" Mormom" church.
I heard somewhere on the news here. Not exactly sure of the source but I heard that religion wasn't allowed into the trial. My husband tells me HE asked not to have his religious beliefs brought into the trial.
posted on May 20, 2001 07:43:47 PM newAren't Mormans and the Jesus Christ Church of Latter Day Saints the same? Reason I ask is that you and others have stated that Green isn't Morman. But he professes to be. He has been quoted as saying he is a fundamentalist morman. He believes he follows the original Morman teachings and that those who have gone against the original church preachings (ie: no long practice polygamy) are hypocrits because their founders were. Am I confused?
Linda_K-If you are confused, I can understand why. The answer to your question about whether Mormons are Latter Day Saints, yes they are.
I did state that Green wasn't like any Mormon I knew personally and that is true.
The Mormons are not the 1st religion to have a seperation of membership due to "fundamental" differences.
I suppose I have no right to say he is not a Mormon since he believes he is.
I was just concerned that people not familiar with my faith might think Greens "beliefs" were the "rule" and not the "exception".
The division that occurred in the Church was for many reasons. If Green maintains I am a hypocrit because I do not believe in or practice polygamy and the founders did, I suppose from his point of view, I am. One of what I call our fundamental beliefs is we will obey the "law of the land". Polygamy is illegal in the US. It's all about perception I suppose and I believe we all must follow our own convictions/conscience.
There may be more "should do/shouldn't do" in our doctrine than many would be comfortable with or perhaps think necessary, but from my personal experience members of my church are very tolerant and I feel comfortable stating the majority believe in everyone's right to choice and freedom to worship. You, of course, will always find "exceptions". But isn't that the way it is with everything???
