Book Review: Love Times Three

Recently, I had an opportunity to hear Joe Darger and his three wives speak about their plural marriage.  I was impressed and moved by the goodness I felt by the faith, love, and family devotion evident by their remarks.

As an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon), our church has taught us for the last century or so that the polygamy we formerly embraced has now been forbidden; indeed it is now considered adultery by the church and the church intolerates membership of one who practices polygamy.^*  When polygamy was renounced, a small percentage of Mormon leaders (apostles, et al) and believers who clung to the teachings of plural marriage--some still found in cannonized LDS scripture not to mention the Old Testament--broke off from the church.  In modern day through the media I was aware of Warren Jeffs, and his group the Fundamental Mormons or FLDS.  I suppose my critical feelings towards the compulsory marriages of Mr. Jeffs were applied to all polygamist groups, not realizing the distinctions among polygamist groups which turns out to be significant.

Although there do exist differences of doctrine between the Independent Fundamentalist groups of Mormons and the mainstream Mormons which is the church of Mitt Romney, myself, and the vast majority who call themselves Mormons, I found surprisingly these Independent Fundamentalists have a doctrine nearly identical to that of Mormons with the exception of polygamy (which may be better termed polygyny as only men have multiple wives, not the other way around).

The book the Dargers wrote Love Time Three takes the reader through the minds and major life events of each of the spouses.  They practice polygamy of their own free choice not because Joe has this huge libido but rather because they feel it necessary to do so to honor God and their religion.  They understand the difficulties of jealousy that arise and their struggles to work through the issues that come up with boundaries and raising a couple dozen children.  It is clear they are practicing the "Principle" (meaning plural marriage) out of goodness and love each other and have much love to give to their children.  They are a successful modern family by any measurement.

As each theme is developed in the book, each spouse writes their own feelings on the event.  For example, when Joe had a healthy, established plural marriage with Vicki and Alina (who are cousins) he took on another marriage in the form of Val (Vicki's twin sister).  In the book you will get to read the perspective on the new marriage partner not only from Joe and Val but Vicki and Alina as well.  The patience and love in this marriage for one another is most admirable.

The purpose of the book is not only to promote understanding of what it is like to be a polygamist, but to rally support to decriminalize the act of plural marriage:  an act where there are no victims.  I have changed my views dramatically on this over the past few years.  I used to selfishly believe that because I personally viewed polygamy as adultery it should be banned.  Having understood Constitutional rights as I do now, I realize that not only is that view grossly incorrect, but that government has no constitutional right to prohibit contracts between consenting adults.  Government should not be issuing marriage licenses; this is the purview of the church or of the individuals themselves.  This means of course, same sex marriages too are allowed under the law and government should not interfere.  That is, government is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion as stated in the first amendment and government at ANY LEVEL telling you who you as an adult can and can't marry is just plain evil and a gross abuse of power.

A substory within the book shows sadly how government additionally abused their authority by coming in and investigating the Dargers when a baby girl died of an unknown birth defect.  I felt angry the state would--propelled by the family's polygamist choice--disrupt this beautiful family and the hard work in raising their children, and the unnecessary fear raised amid an innocent family practicing their religion, not to mention an utter waste of precious tax dollars. 

I highly recommend the book; I've even taken some notes on how to better interact with my own wife and improve my own marriage.  I never watched the HBO series "Big Love" but the book counters with a claim betimes of a more accurate depiction of fundamentalist Mormonism so it serves as an excellent starting place for understanding the motivation behind Mormon polygamy.  Love Times Three:  Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage, released last fall is an easy read, just under 300 pages, and available through the Darger's blog/website LoveTimeThree.com

* There is good historical reason for the intolerance.  Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Act in 1862 which began a generation of legislation of unconstitutional federal persecution against the Church including imprisonment, removal of voter rights, withholding of statehood, and absconsion of property.

SCOTUS: 6 Catholics, 3 Jews?

Imagine for a minute there were two sitting justices on the SCOTUS who were Mormon by religious affiliation. The only Protestant on the Supreme Court was retiring and the POTUS nominated yet another Mormon to the bench. How would you feel? Would you feel like somehow though the various Protestant denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals) comprise a majority of religious adherents in the US that you had no representation? Would you wonder why a US religion registering around 2% was getting a third justice while your religion had no representation? Would you protest or accuse the POTUS of being a religious bigot? (SCOTUS religious stats here)

Yet in the nomination of Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, Obama has done just this with one twist: substitute Jewish for Mormon and, Bingo! Actually, if anything I'm being generous because there are more Mormons than Jews in the US and there have historically been 7 Jews on the SCOTUS while representing Mormons there have been fewer: lets see there has been--hmm, let me think a moment--oh yeah! There hasn't EVER been a Mormon on the SCOTUS!

I use the example of the Mormon faith because I am one and it is the religion I am most familiar with, yet Mormons are hardly unique in their lament. Consider Baptists: they comprise nearly 20% of the population so roughly they should have a couple of Justices on the SCOTUS. Baptists have none. Conversely, Catholics are currently way over-represented comprising 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats (Sotomayor, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts) while representing a mere 25% of the population.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not here to stir up religious fervor. I'm not here to mandate proportional religious equality on the SCOTUS. Indeed I have a deep respect for religions and am proud to have close family ties to members of Jewish, Mormon, Protestant, and Muslim faiths; and while there just aren't a bunch of Catholics in the family, I have numerous Catholic friends and people I admire.

What I am saying is that the POTUS should use more judgement in balancing out the deep diversity of religions and certainly the nomination of a third Jew to balance out six Catholics is about as skewed religiously as you can get. Those nine justices combined would represent only 26% of the US citizenry.

I vehemently oppose the nomination of Elena Kagan to the SCOTUS. Being the third Jew and having zero hours experience being a judge are just the writing on the wall of mene mene tekel upharsin: that Kagan fails to defend the Constitution as the citizenry adopted it. Show me where in these hearings has Kagan declared Obamacare unconstitutional because it mandates the purchase of a product (health insurance), something that has never been required of the citizenry before. And then show me where in Article 1, Section 8--the list of specific authorities granted the Federal Government--does it talk about health care? The nomination of unconstitutional Kagan must be stopped, by filibuster if necessary.

++++ Update 7/10

I wasn't the lone voice lamenting the cause of a another Jew being nominated. Consider this story from late June (h/t CNS news) in an interview with the Rabbinical Alliance of America:

Rabbi Yehuda Levin, spokesman for the alliance, told CNSNews.com on Thursday that "a great deal has been made about the fact that she would be the second Jewish woman on the court, and we want to signal to people across the country that we take no pride in this.”

Levin said most people are happy when "one of their own" is nominated to such a high position. But, he added, "We feel that Elena Kagan turns traditional Judaism on its head--from a concept of a nation of priests and holy people, she is turning it into, ‘Let’s homosexualize every segment of society. And by the way, partial-birth babies
have no right to be delivered.’"

“What exactly was Obama thinking, President Obama thinking, when he nominated Kagan? Because eventually, down the road, someone--or some group--is going to ‘take the hit’ for the crazy decisions that Kagan is bound to make. So we would have much preferred if President Obama had given this ‘distinction’ to another minority group, instead of singling out the Jews.”

"We’re waiting for the more courageous, decent senators--whether it’s a (Sen.) Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) or a (Sen.) Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) or a (Sen.) Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)--we’re looking for them to stand up and filibuster this embarrassing endangerment of a nomination,” Levin said.

You know, when considering Harry Reid's political views as Mormons are supposed to be similarly anti-abortion, strong supporters of traditional marriage, and against Socialism, I can see exactly where the Rabbinical Alliance of America is coming from.

Evils of a Dole: A Mormon Perspective on Harry Reid's Socialism

Much has been said of late concerning liberal Democrat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's(*) stance in the Mormon church vis-à-vis his political philosophy. For those not familiar with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the church maintains political neutrality. Every election cycle members of the church--via letters read in meetinghouses across the nation from the ranking "First Presidency" of the church--are advised be responsible and informed citizens in their communities, but not to use the Church in any means for direct political advocacy.

Nevertheless, the question has been raised this week by the Salt Lake Tribune of how the Church can allow a member with such blatant Socialist philosophies such as Harry Reid to be allowed full privileges in the Church. This is because the church has consistently allowed membership to be predicated on personal testimony and adherence to moral guidelines and excluded the promotion of Socialism from that list of requisites for worthy membership. Unless the Church reforms its membership guidelines, we recognize Harry Reid as a worthy member of the Church though we stand strongly against the vast majority of his efforts and political tenants.

This is not to say the Church has been silent on the evils of Socialism. Indeed Ezra Taft Benson, a past President and Prophet of the Church, was one of the most vocal leaders in his denunciation of Socialism. Last month, a favorite blogger of ours--True Politics USA--had these well-sourced articles on these past denunciations by LDS (or Mormon) leaders: Ezra Taft Benson describing socialism, Conference definitions of socialism, and Prophetic Quotations on Politics. True Politics even had a enlightening discussion with us on Why don't LDS prophets discuss socialism more today?

Although Church leaders do not denounce the word Socialism today, there is much talk on the "evils of a dole." For example in an April 2007 discourse in the Church's worldwide General Conference, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton who oversees the temporal affairs of the Church, quoted past Prophet Heber J. Grant (founder of the Church's respected welfare program) as saying: "Our primary purpose was to set up … a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and in-dependence, industry, thrift and self respect be once more established amongst our people." Indeed, a search on the Church's online "Gospel Library" for the term "dole" reveals 91 citations of the term, none of which are done so in a favorable light (...and none refer to "Bob Dole" either, ROFL). Included in these "dole" articles is one by James E. Faust, who as a member of the high ranking group "Quorum of the Twelve" sustained as prophets of the church and as a former leader of the Utah Democratic Party stated in an October 1982 General Conference address: "It [giving a full day’s work for a full day’s pay] will also help us avoid accepting government doles which rob us of our dignity and our self-respect."

To us it is evident that the Church is manifestly against government handouts or doles and Socialistic ideals. Surely Harry Reid's proposed healthcare bill in Congress is a dole and a Socialistic ideal to give a handout, grow government largess, and does not promote independence and self-reliance. The bill includes taxes taking money out of our hands, our neighbors hands, and our current and future posterity's hands to support it--$1T worth of money! We furthermore decry the lack of constitutional support for such a nationalized healthcare plan! Although the Church hasn't spoken out directly against the bill (and would likely not do so), it indubitably would be in keeping with the teachings of the church if it so chose to do so.


*A genealogical footnote: For the record we have no traceable genealogical link going back several generations to Harry Reid (or for that matter two other notable Mormons with that surname: Andy Reid and Roger Reid; indeed historically, our Reid progenitors were hardshell-Baptist and likely anti-Mormon having migrated into lands immediately vacated by the Mormons fleeing Missouri Governor Boggs'(D) infamous extermination order).