The Salt Lake Tribune posted a blog and gave my blog a shout-out:
http://blogs.sltrib.com/slcrawler/2008/11/polyg-blogger-takes-on-dnews.htm
Polygamous blogger Moroni Jessop (his name, alone, is a road map of western polygamy) fires back at the Mormon church-owned Deseret News after its TV critic Scott Pierce slammed a documentary of Jessop's family.
Pierce says Forbidden Love on TLC is not only "laughably bad" television, but reporter Dawn Porter "is apparently incapable of spending 30 seconds doing research on the Internet."
Porter is also incapable of understanding that Mormons do not practice polygamy. That it was abandoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1896.
What Porter says in the film that Pierce finds ridiculous is this:
Polygamy means one husband and lots of wives. It's a basic tenet of the Mormon Church. Now it's outlawed, but many fundamentalist Mormons hide out in the middle of nowhere in Utah and the states around it.
The issue here, of course, is who gets to define what "true" Mormonism is, the church headquartered in Salt Lake City, or the so-called fundamentalists like Jessop who are scattered throughout the West?
Jessop, who says he has "two wives and many happy children," (above) critiques the critic, calling Pierce a "Mormon Twit/Journalist," and his review of Forbidden Love simply LDS church propaganda:
. . . Maybe Dawn called us Mormons, because WE call ourselves Mormons. Arguably, we have more right to call ourselves “Mormons” than the ever-morphing LDS Church. We claim and teach all the old foundational teachings of the early founders of the Mormon church whereas the LDS Church has compromised their tenets to appear more mainstream and palatable to society.
The two articles are a point-counterpoint package that you might find more entertaining than the original film.
Here was one of the comments that an anonymous poster made:
"All I need to know about this show I can gather from the picture: A semi-literate polyg clan standing in front of a double wide.it's like something right out of "Deliverance".Wow. Nothing makes polygammy more atractive than mobile homes."
And here is my glorious response:
"I enjoyed your blog. But I especially enjoyed being called "semi-literate" by someone who cannot even spell "polygammy". The sad fact that I live in a trailer has nothing to do with how literate I am."
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Merry Wives' Blog - "Why Is My Life 'Forbidden Love'?"
This is a blog post written by Ruth, one of the wives from Centennial Park featured on "Forbidden Love: Polygamy":
http://merrywives.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-is-my-life-forbiddin-love/
WHY IS MY LIFE “FORBIDDIN LOVE”?
November 28, 2008 by natalie
The “Forbiddin Love” polygamy show with Dawn Porter aired in the USA. Very interesting indeed, since we were told that this show would only show in the UK. However after alot of venting, I have decided to be at peace with whatever message was supposed to go out.
It is true, Dawn Porter came at a very heated time, the week after the raid in Texas. All of us were feeling oppressed with dark clouds following us everywhere. Even though we are not part of the FLDS, the blow to these people were deeply felt. Heartsick, we watched the atrocities and civil right violations played out in a disgusting inhumane way. The helplessness that we felt intensified. Tabloided and scandalous remarks were made by irresponsible media, making the damage irreparable. Taking all of this into consideration, canceling the Dawn Porter interview was our first knee jerk reaction. Instead, we decided it might help demystify and normalize our lifestyle. It was a gamble, but we went for it.
There are many lessons to be learned when participating with media. We are too trusting and are usually disappointed with the end product. Nevertheless there were enlightening conversations and debates that took place. My children loved participating in these conversations and became fond of Dawn and her film crew. We may have challenges and interesting complexities, but the unique fabric of our family is what makes our life so great! My family is not perfect, but at the end of the day, I am grateful for each one of them. I don’t call this “forbidden love”, I call this true love.
-Ruth
http://merrywives.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/why-is-my-life-forbiddin-love/
WHY IS MY LIFE “FORBIDDIN LOVE”?
November 28, 2008 by natalie
The “Forbiddin Love” polygamy show with Dawn Porter aired in the USA. Very interesting indeed, since we were told that this show would only show in the UK. However after alot of venting, I have decided to be at peace with whatever message was supposed to go out.
It is true, Dawn Porter came at a very heated time, the week after the raid in Texas. All of us were feeling oppressed with dark clouds following us everywhere. Even though we are not part of the FLDS, the blow to these people were deeply felt. Heartsick, we watched the atrocities and civil right violations played out in a disgusting inhumane way. The helplessness that we felt intensified. Tabloided and scandalous remarks were made by irresponsible media, making the damage irreparable. Taking all of this into consideration, canceling the Dawn Porter interview was our first knee jerk reaction. Instead, we decided it might help demystify and normalize our lifestyle. It was a gamble, but we went for it.
There are many lessons to be learned when participating with media. We are too trusting and are usually disappointed with the end product. Nevertheless there were enlightening conversations and debates that took place. My children loved participating in these conversations and became fond of Dawn and her film crew. We may have challenges and interesting complexities, but the unique fabric of our family is what makes our life so great! My family is not perfect, but at the end of the day, I am grateful for each one of them. I don’t call this “forbidden love”, I call this true love.
-Ruth
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Moroni Jessop, Monkey Jumping Up & Down
As I mentioned, there has been much activity in my life since “Forbidden Love: Polygamy” aired on TLC a couple of weeks ago. (It is supposed to rerun a couple of times in December as well.)
Most of it has been positive. People from across the States have emailed me out of the blue, thanking me for my example. Some have stated that their wives struggled with the concept of plural marriage until they watched the show or read the blog.
There has been some negative response, but, surprisingly, most of it has come from my own community – the people that I am supposed to be closer to than anyone else. Mostly, the negative response is found in their stony stares and silent disapproval.
First of all, I must state – I did not make the decision to participate in this show alone. I presented the idea to the priesthood leadership of our community, and no one objected. There was some concern as to the motives of the producers, but we all were in agreement that it might be a good thing.
However, this did not prevent one lady in our group (whom I respect very much) from telling my wife (they never tell me to my face – always to my wives) that I am “a monkey jumping up and down, saying, ‘Look at me! Look at me!’”
Ouch. And this is supposed to be from the people that love me?? Is this what they think of me?
First of all, in 2001, I discovered that the Internet might be a good place to find more wives. After a couple of years of failed attempts, a couple of crazy cat ladies and a few fake personas later, I came to the conclusion that the Web was NOT a good place to meet wives. But it was an excellent place to network with people who believe the same as I do, or to answer the questions of those who are wanting to know more.
So I stared a furious campaign of putting myself onto the Net. I started posting on discussion boards and talking about my family, how we lived and what was working for me. I did it with such a passion. I felt driven, even to the point that I knew that I was being driven, but not exactly to what end. Even when my community suffered a division a couple of years ago, I still felt driven, and that amazed me, because our community was being pulled apart and I still felt the drive.
Even then, there were many in our community who criticized my activity on the Internet. People would get up in Priesthood or Sacrament Meetings and unequivocally state, “We should not be preaching on the Internet.” No names were mentioned. But EVERYONE knew who the speaker was talking about.
This attitude was not unique to MY community, but belongs to most Mormon fundamentalists. One item that I got from a good source (and I am pretty proud about this one) was that the Allred Group (AUB) developed their “No Internet Preaching” policy based completely on my omnipresence on the Internet. And this is because of my complete willingness to discuss taboo subjects – plural marriage, endowment ceremonies, garments, second annointings, etc. If someone tells me to shut up, generally, I will shout louder.
(However, I have always been consistent in keeping people’s identities secret and respecting privacy.)
And doing the show was merely an extension of this insatiable “drive”. In July, 2007, I prayed for an opportunity, and in July, 2007, I was approached by the producers at Incubator.
This fear/ loathing that Mormon fundamentalists have for the media stems from the poor treatment that the media has afforded polygamists. And polygamists who go to the media are also maligned by us. I used to think that Tom Green was such a loser until my recent experience. I recently read his paper entitled “Why We Talk To The Media”, and his arguments sound a lot like mine. I have a kinder view towards him now. (Although I never married a thirteen year-old, and I never went on Jerry Springer, shouting, “Your just mad, because I get more than you.”) (On second thought, I DID say a couple of stupid things myself.)
In Tom Green’s paper, he talks about viewing Alex Joseph (polygamist icon of the 70s) with contempt. Tom even uses the same argument that I myself have used:
“Don’t hide your light under a bushel, but let your light so shine before men that they will see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven.”
The paranoia and fear that polygamists have goes even deeper. At the root of it is that we, as a people, have had our civil rights violated. In the 1940s, the FBI (encouraged by the Mormon Church) busted down the doors of dozens of polygamist men and drug sleeping husbands out of their beds while wives and children looked on in horror. These men rotted in prison for years simply for living their religion. In 1953, the whole community of Short Creek was arrested, and women and children – like at the YFZ Ranch earlier this year – were carted away by the busload.
Government is supposed to protect people in their rights. Is it any wonder that the polygamists distrust the government or the media? These people would not even talk amongst themselves who was married to who. Marriages took place in secret behind closed doors, and you never divulged who performed the marriage. Children were taught not to talk about the other wives. There was no cake, no reception. The identity of your husband was a secret, and your husband would sneak in through the back door to see you, or he would risk going to jail.
Then along come performing monkeys like me, who have no fear of going to the media, talking openly about our lifestyle. Is it any wonder that I am viewed with contempt??
When my wife Martha argued with this respected woman about going to the media, Martha pointed out that Lyman Jessop had gone to the media back in the 1940s. This woman became irate and pointed out that Lyman’s case was different. Lyman was forced to do so.
“You have no clue what our family was going through when we made the decision to do this!” Martha insisted.
Lyman Jessop was one of the polygamists who was put in prison in the 1940s. Like me, he was a poor man. He had three wives and many, many children. In an attempt to show the world that polygamists are normal people, he (along with prominent doctor Rulon Allred) invited Life Magazine into their home for a photo shoot of life in a polygamist household.
My family also decided to do this out of fear. My brother was going through a highly publicized divorce case, and the media had already been to our home, to my former place of work, and we had a hate monger named Flora Jessop trying to dig up dirt on me. In light of the FLDS fiasco in Texas, I concluded that – if I did not speak for myself – someone else would. In retrospect, I still feel that it was the right decision, and I would do it all over again.
It is generally understood that Tom Green went to prison, because the government wanted to make an example of him. That is he had kept his mouth shut that none of this would have happened to him. I am aware that the same could happen to me. Do I want to go to jail? No! Do I want to have my children taken away from me?? No, no, NO!! The thought is terrifying to me.
But we come back to the “driven” part. I refuse to live in fear. I know that many people will hate me for speaking up. I also know that many people will listen. So to you polygamists who despise me for speaking up, to those of you who are embarrassed by me, I am sorry. I don’t mean to hurt you, and I love you.
But please put some distance between you and me if you fear what I am doing, because I have just begun to speak out. And I am not likely to be quiet in the future. I can’t.
Most of it has been positive. People from across the States have emailed me out of the blue, thanking me for my example. Some have stated that their wives struggled with the concept of plural marriage until they watched the show or read the blog.
There has been some negative response, but, surprisingly, most of it has come from my own community – the people that I am supposed to be closer to than anyone else. Mostly, the negative response is found in their stony stares and silent disapproval.
First of all, I must state – I did not make the decision to participate in this show alone. I presented the idea to the priesthood leadership of our community, and no one objected. There was some concern as to the motives of the producers, but we all were in agreement that it might be a good thing.
However, this did not prevent one lady in our group (whom I respect very much) from telling my wife (they never tell me to my face – always to my wives) that I am “a monkey jumping up and down, saying, ‘Look at me! Look at me!’”
Ouch. And this is supposed to be from the people that love me?? Is this what they think of me?
First of all, in 2001, I discovered that the Internet might be a good place to find more wives. After a couple of years of failed attempts, a couple of crazy cat ladies and a few fake personas later, I came to the conclusion that the Web was NOT a good place to meet wives. But it was an excellent place to network with people who believe the same as I do, or to answer the questions of those who are wanting to know more.
So I stared a furious campaign of putting myself onto the Net. I started posting on discussion boards and talking about my family, how we lived and what was working for me. I did it with such a passion. I felt driven, even to the point that I knew that I was being driven, but not exactly to what end. Even when my community suffered a division a couple of years ago, I still felt driven, and that amazed me, because our community was being pulled apart and I still felt the drive.
Even then, there were many in our community who criticized my activity on the Internet. People would get up in Priesthood or Sacrament Meetings and unequivocally state, “We should not be preaching on the Internet.” No names were mentioned. But EVERYONE knew who the speaker was talking about.
This attitude was not unique to MY community, but belongs to most Mormon fundamentalists. One item that I got from a good source (and I am pretty proud about this one) was that the Allred Group (AUB) developed their “No Internet Preaching” policy based completely on my omnipresence on the Internet. And this is because of my complete willingness to discuss taboo subjects – plural marriage, endowment ceremonies, garments, second annointings, etc. If someone tells me to shut up, generally, I will shout louder.
(However, I have always been consistent in keeping people’s identities secret and respecting privacy.)
And doing the show was merely an extension of this insatiable “drive”. In July, 2007, I prayed for an opportunity, and in July, 2007, I was approached by the producers at Incubator.
This fear/ loathing that Mormon fundamentalists have for the media stems from the poor treatment that the media has afforded polygamists. And polygamists who go to the media are also maligned by us. I used to think that Tom Green was such a loser until my recent experience. I recently read his paper entitled “Why We Talk To The Media”, and his arguments sound a lot like mine. I have a kinder view towards him now. (Although I never married a thirteen year-old, and I never went on Jerry Springer, shouting, “Your just mad, because I get more than you.”) (On second thought, I DID say a couple of stupid things myself.)
In Tom Green’s paper, he talks about viewing Alex Joseph (polygamist icon of the 70s) with contempt. Tom even uses the same argument that I myself have used:
“Don’t hide your light under a bushel, but let your light so shine before men that they will see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven.”
The paranoia and fear that polygamists have goes even deeper. At the root of it is that we, as a people, have had our civil rights violated. In the 1940s, the FBI (encouraged by the Mormon Church) busted down the doors of dozens of polygamist men and drug sleeping husbands out of their beds while wives and children looked on in horror. These men rotted in prison for years simply for living their religion. In 1953, the whole community of Short Creek was arrested, and women and children – like at the YFZ Ranch earlier this year – were carted away by the busload.
Government is supposed to protect people in their rights. Is it any wonder that the polygamists distrust the government or the media? These people would not even talk amongst themselves who was married to who. Marriages took place in secret behind closed doors, and you never divulged who performed the marriage. Children were taught not to talk about the other wives. There was no cake, no reception. The identity of your husband was a secret, and your husband would sneak in through the back door to see you, or he would risk going to jail.
Then along come performing monkeys like me, who have no fear of going to the media, talking openly about our lifestyle. Is it any wonder that I am viewed with contempt??
When my wife Martha argued with this respected woman about going to the media, Martha pointed out that Lyman Jessop had gone to the media back in the 1940s. This woman became irate and pointed out that Lyman’s case was different. Lyman was forced to do so.
“You have no clue what our family was going through when we made the decision to do this!” Martha insisted.
Lyman Jessop was one of the polygamists who was put in prison in the 1940s. Like me, he was a poor man. He had three wives and many, many children. In an attempt to show the world that polygamists are normal people, he (along with prominent doctor Rulon Allred) invited Life Magazine into their home for a photo shoot of life in a polygamist household.
My family also decided to do this out of fear. My brother was going through a highly publicized divorce case, and the media had already been to our home, to my former place of work, and we had a hate monger named Flora Jessop trying to dig up dirt on me. In light of the FLDS fiasco in Texas, I concluded that – if I did not speak for myself – someone else would. In retrospect, I still feel that it was the right decision, and I would do it all over again.
It is generally understood that Tom Green went to prison, because the government wanted to make an example of him. That is he had kept his mouth shut that none of this would have happened to him. I am aware that the same could happen to me. Do I want to go to jail? No! Do I want to have my children taken away from me?? No, no, NO!! The thought is terrifying to me.
But we come back to the “driven” part. I refuse to live in fear. I know that many people will hate me for speaking up. I also know that many people will listen. So to you polygamists who despise me for speaking up, to those of you who are embarrassed by me, I am sorry. I don’t mean to hurt you, and I love you.
But please put some distance between you and me if you fear what I am doing, because I have just begun to speak out. And I am not likely to be quiet in the future. I can’t.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Feedback From The TLC Show
Okay, having “Forbidden Love: Polygamy” air several days ago on TLC was a different experience from having Dawn’s show air in Great Britain. Mainly because all of our friends and families got to watch the show.
First of all, let me clarify something – “Forbidden Love: Polygamy” and “Dawn Porter: The Polygamist’s Wife” are the SAME SHOW. I got an email from one friend, asking me when I was going to give it a break. I am not becoming a media whore (yet), because this was the same show – one had one name in the UK, and the other version had a different name here across the Pond.
(Btw, there is another show that is an extension of this shoot that is due to air on History Channel sometime next year.)
There were some difference between the British and American versions, though. For instance, TLC thought that the “Moroni makes whoopee” and the “she’s humping my husband” comments were too racy.
The person who struggled most with the show airing here in the States was our daughter Sophie. It was one thing to have the show air in front of 1.8 million people in a country not your own. But to be seen by people that you go to high school with – Sophie was mortified. She did the whole teen girl bit and cried in her room, and when she came out, I told her, “Sophie, it’s on TLC, not ABC. How many people are going to watch it?”
The next day, there was a group of girls waiting at Sophie’s locker. One of them asked her, “Sophie, have you ever been on TV?”
“Um, yeah,” Sophie replied.
“What were you on TV for?”
“Because of my family.”
“That is so cool,” they said, and they walked away. Sophie said that she got funny looks all day. (As a consolation prize, I bought her the “Twilight” soundtrack.)
One of the teachers confronted Temple at school and jokingly asked for an autograph.
Every day, word is coming in to me about different friends and family who have watched the program. I got an email from a family friend whom I have not seen in over twenty years. I have heard that some of my extended family was really embarrassed by my appearance. I feel bad about this. Who wants to be an embarrassment?
Most of my family viewed it as a comedy, and Dawn did not make a good impression on my family, in general. The whole family laughed as Dawn went “deeper into the desert to meet a man named Moroni” as the screen showed a blowing tumbleweed and eerie music played.
I have heard that my sister moaned, “Moroni, why? Why??” when she watched me admit that I would have probably strayed in my marriage had I not been a polygamist.
The most painful comments are those from people in my own community. Virtually none of these comments are made to my face, but they end up floating back to me. The derision that my family has drawn is astounding. There was one man who told me to my face, and I really appreciated it. He thought that my appearance on TV might bring risk to his business, because of his associations with me. I don’t see how it would, though.
None of them understand my reasons. And my reasons have to do with not hiding your light under a bushel, but being a light on the hill.
It has been fun reading the comments. Here is one from a blog called “Media Sluts”. (I love the name.):
“Dawn spent a day with another family, who lived in a double-wide trailer in the middle of nowhere, she said with no water or electricity. There were two wives, and I think six children? The oldest daughter was 14, seemed relatively normal, and said she wasn't sure whether she'd like a polygamist marriage or not. The two wives were young and attractive-looking, and the girls were all wearing pants! However, husband Moroni (yes, his name sounds very close to "moron," but he says it's an old family name) admits that there was jealousy between his wives at first. He also says he's looking to add a third..! But he's apparently been turned down more than once, needing his other wives to console him. (Hmm, maybe they found out what the living arrangement was going to be.) After spending a night at this home, Dawn says her goodbyes and gets into a waiting truck with her camera crew. She seems really shaken/upset, and kept saying what an experience it was staying there. Well, I think there were some things about this situation that didn't make it into the show, but they are mentioned in this blog entry, written by the host. (She also mentions how she picked up her colorful, vintage wardrobe for the show.)”
Wow, Martha and Temple were wearing pants! *gasp* What will those women think of next? Polygamy aside, people forget that Mormon women were the first women in our nation to have the right to vote. We are not Amish! I guess this is not a good time to bring up thongs! Ha!
Most of the comments were fairly positive. There were a few about polygamy not being sanctioned in the Bible. Come off of it! Most of the prophets in the Bible were polygamists. No sane person would believe that polygamy is not biblical.
One of my favorite comments was from the YouTube site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t502voADIaM
“This Brit broad is about as smart as a dung beetle… I almost hoped she’d be kidnapped and made to have 20 kids.”
First of all, since I know Dawn, I can say that there is nothing dumb about her. She is very, very bright. But the comment made me laugh and laugh.
Anyway, many comments deal with our living conditions. I have been planning on going into that, but have had little time. I will get to it soon.
First of all, let me clarify something – “Forbidden Love: Polygamy” and “Dawn Porter: The Polygamist’s Wife” are the SAME SHOW. I got an email from one friend, asking me when I was going to give it a break. I am not becoming a media whore (yet), because this was the same show – one had one name in the UK, and the other version had a different name here across the Pond.
(Btw, there is another show that is an extension of this shoot that is due to air on History Channel sometime next year.)
There were some difference between the British and American versions, though. For instance, TLC thought that the “Moroni makes whoopee” and the “she’s humping my husband” comments were too racy.
The person who struggled most with the show airing here in the States was our daughter Sophie. It was one thing to have the show air in front of 1.8 million people in a country not your own. But to be seen by people that you go to high school with – Sophie was mortified. She did the whole teen girl bit and cried in her room, and when she came out, I told her, “Sophie, it’s on TLC, not ABC. How many people are going to watch it?”
The next day, there was a group of girls waiting at Sophie’s locker. One of them asked her, “Sophie, have you ever been on TV?”
“Um, yeah,” Sophie replied.
“What were you on TV for?”
“Because of my family.”
“That is so cool,” they said, and they walked away. Sophie said that she got funny looks all day. (As a consolation prize, I bought her the “Twilight” soundtrack.)
One of the teachers confronted Temple at school and jokingly asked for an autograph.
Every day, word is coming in to me about different friends and family who have watched the program. I got an email from a family friend whom I have not seen in over twenty years. I have heard that some of my extended family was really embarrassed by my appearance. I feel bad about this. Who wants to be an embarrassment?
Most of my family viewed it as a comedy, and Dawn did not make a good impression on my family, in general. The whole family laughed as Dawn went “deeper into the desert to meet a man named Moroni” as the screen showed a blowing tumbleweed and eerie music played.
I have heard that my sister moaned, “Moroni, why? Why??” when she watched me admit that I would have probably strayed in my marriage had I not been a polygamist.
The most painful comments are those from people in my own community. Virtually none of these comments are made to my face, but they end up floating back to me. The derision that my family has drawn is astounding. There was one man who told me to my face, and I really appreciated it. He thought that my appearance on TV might bring risk to his business, because of his associations with me. I don’t see how it would, though.
None of them understand my reasons. And my reasons have to do with not hiding your light under a bushel, but being a light on the hill.
It has been fun reading the comments. Here is one from a blog called “Media Sluts”. (I love the name.):
“Dawn spent a day with another family, who lived in a double-wide trailer in the middle of nowhere, she said with no water or electricity. There were two wives, and I think six children? The oldest daughter was 14, seemed relatively normal, and said she wasn't sure whether she'd like a polygamist marriage or not. The two wives were young and attractive-looking, and the girls were all wearing pants! However, husband Moroni (yes, his name sounds very close to "moron," but he says it's an old family name) admits that there was jealousy between his wives at first. He also says he's looking to add a third..! But he's apparently been turned down more than once, needing his other wives to console him. (Hmm, maybe they found out what the living arrangement was going to be.) After spending a night at this home, Dawn says her goodbyes and gets into a waiting truck with her camera crew. She seems really shaken/upset, and kept saying what an experience it was staying there. Well, I think there were some things about this situation that didn't make it into the show, but they are mentioned in this blog entry, written by the host. (She also mentions how she picked up her colorful, vintage wardrobe for the show.)”
Wow, Martha and Temple were wearing pants! *gasp* What will those women think of next? Polygamy aside, people forget that Mormon women were the first women in our nation to have the right to vote. We are not Amish! I guess this is not a good time to bring up thongs! Ha!
Most of the comments were fairly positive. There were a few about polygamy not being sanctioned in the Bible. Come off of it! Most of the prophets in the Bible were polygamists. No sane person would believe that polygamy is not biblical.
One of my favorite comments was from the YouTube site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t502voADIaM
“This Brit broad is about as smart as a dung beetle… I almost hoped she’d be kidnapped and made to have 20 kids.”
First of all, since I know Dawn, I can say that there is nothing dumb about her. She is very, very bright. But the comment made me laugh and laugh.
Anyway, many comments deal with our living conditions. I have been planning on going into that, but have had little time. I will get to it soon.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Mormon Twit/ Journalist Writing For Mormon Churched-Owned Tabloid Calls Me Non-Mormon Because Mormon Church Paid Him to Say So
Okay, so the Deseret News wrote a review of tonight’s “Forbidden Love: Polygamy”. You can read it for yourself:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705263055,00.html
Polygamy show stinks
By Scott D. Pierce
Deseret News
Published: Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008 12:08 a.m. MST
Let's not pull any punches here. Dawn Porter is no journalist and cable channel TLC is beyond irresponsible to air her laughably bad program about polygamy.
"Forbidden Love" (Sunday, 11 p.m., TLC) is rather ridiculous to begin with. Porter tells viewers that she's been single for four years and she's looking for love. But first she plans to "experience some of the most extreme ways that women find love and live with men."
Next week: geishas!
But first up: polygamists! And, apparently incapable of spending 30 seconds doing research on the Internet, Porter is also incapable of understanding that Mormons do not practice polygamy. That it was abandoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1896.
"Polygamy means one husband and lots of wives. It's a basic tenet of the Mormon Church," Porter intones. "Now it's outlawed, but many fundamentalist Mormons hide out in the middle of nowhere in Utah and the states around it."
Again, 30 seconds of research and Porter would have discovered that it hasn't been a basic tenet of the Mormon Church in 118 years.
Porter traveled to Centennial Park, Ariz., to visit a family of polygamists at the time Texas authorities were raiding the FLDS compound. "I couldn't have chosen a worse moment to try and get into a Mormon household," she incorrectly states.
And, reading a headline in the Cedar City Spectrum, she tells viewers about the "400 children taken away from a polygamous Mormon family in Texas. Basically, allegations of child abuse and underage marriage."
So, she not only misinforms viewers because there is no such thing as a "polygamous Mormon family," but she ties the Mormon Church to "allegations of child abuse and underage marriage."
It's flabbergasting.
There are examples throughout the hour of Porter's incompetence. Multiple uses of phrases like "Mormon polygamists" and raising polygamist children to have "true Mormon values."
The show itself is a bore. Porter meets and talks to polygamists and, through a series of interviews, reveals ... pretty much nothing. And, if her "reporting" weren't so amateurish and misleading, it would be almost funny.
It's not so much about the people she's "reporting" on, it's about Porter herself. How she feels about the prospects of entering a polygamous marriage. About how she'd be uncomfortable if her husband was sleeping with another wife.
Oh, and there's dramatic/eerie music playing in the background just to take this from cheesy to cheesiest.
There are moments that are so ludicrous you almost have to wonder if Porter is putting us on. It plays like a parody from "Saturday Night Live."
When she visits a polygamist and his two wives, Porter opines, "So Martha and Temple make house, while Moroni makes whoopee. Sounds like a good deal for a man. Time to take Moroni for a little walk."
Her analysis of the situation at Moroni's house?
"That was nuts. That was properly nuts," Porter says.
And, after discussing religious beliefs with one of the polygamist women, she actually says, "So there it is. The elephant in the room. God."
Profound and analytical she's not.
All of this would be laughable if Porter and TLC weren't so irresponsible. If this is the best TLC can come up with in the way of programming, just shut down the operation right now.
Okay, where do I start with this blatant piece of LDS propaganda other than to *expletive deleted*? Did you see that?? The whole basis for his criticism was that Dawn called us “Mormons”. Well, maybe Dawn called us Mormons, because WE call ourselves Mormons. Arguably, we have more right to call ourselves “Mormons” than the ever-morphing LDS Church. We claim and teach all the old foundational teachings of the early founders of the Mormon church whereas the LDS Church has compromised their tenets to appear more mainstream and palatable to society.
A decade ago, the LDS Church was trying to distance itself from the term “Mormon”. They came out with statements discouraging their members from using the word “Mormon” too often to describe themselves and to emphasize that they are Christians. Why? Because most people associate “Mormons” with practices deemed as bizarre according to modern standards – such as polygamy. And the LDS Church has been on a PR campaign for a while to “clean up its image” and distance itself from its controversial past. One way of doing that was to disassociate themselves from the appellation of “Mormon”.
Then a few years ago, “Big Love” comes out, and the LDS Church is mortified that the modern practice of polygamy is being associated with the Church – even though “Big Love” accurately depicted the current division between polygamist Mormons and mainstream LDS. They even show the discrimination and hostility that many (most) good Latter-Day Saints show to polygamists.
(Last night, my brother-in-law related to me that one of his good LDS neighbors in Utah told him that he wished their prophet would give the okay to kill polygamists, and then he would stock up on his ammunition.)
The LDS Church again issued further statements when the fiasco worsened in Texas this spring. This was due to the fact that polls revealed that most people assumed that the inhabitants of the YFZ Ranch had some connection to the Mormon Church. So in a move that made them look even more stupid, the LDS Church came out with press release after frickin’ press release stating that those who live polygamy today ARE NOT MORMON.
My question to the LDS Church is this: SO WHICH IS IT??? You don’t want to call yourselves “Mormons” anymore? But then you don’t want us to call ourselves “Mormons” either?? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have your proverbial cake and then not expect me to have mine, too.
I have a couple of objections in the article:
“So, she not only misinforms viewers because there is no such thing as a ‘polygamous Mormon family,’ but she ties the Mormon Church to ‘allegations of child abuse and underage marriage.’”
There’s no such thing as a “polygamous Mormon family”? Dude! WE are a polygamous Mormon family!! We baptize our children. We study from the Book of Mormon. We may not have official manuals on what we are or aren’t allowed to teach, but at least we have the pure endowment with all the signs, tokens AND penalties still intact. If that’s not being Mormon, then I don’t know what is.
I was amazed at the level of support that the LDS Church gave to Arizona’s Proposition 102 and California’s Proposition 8. I was just speaking last week to a disaffected LDS man who said that the LDS Church TOLD their members how to vote, and that campaigning for it would count as a church calling. Conversely, those who campaigned AGAINST these propositions found that the Church took punitive action against them by revoking their temple recommends.
Why?? Is it because the Church is against gay marriages? Not so much as they are against polygamy. Proposition 102 put wording in the Arizona Constitution that defined marriage as between “ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”. This is a definition that is intended to take away right from polygamists, and 90% of the campaign funds came from Mormons. Even though polygamy was once a practice of the Mormon Church, they now fight against those who practice it today, to the point that they are willing to campaign to have our rights taken away.
“Again, 30 seconds of research and Porter would have discovered that it hasn't been a basic tenet of the Mormon Church in 118 years.”
If it is not a tenet of the Mormon Church then why is Section 132 still in the Doctrine & Covenants. Take it out! Get rid of it! It teaches that polygamy is legal in the sight of God.
And the Church hasn’t practiced polygamy in 118 years? That is not true! Modern historians have shown that the Manifesto of 1890 that forbade the LDS from continuing polygamy was a sham, and that Church leaders continued living polygamy for 15 years after the fact. So it is more like 104 years, and they still teach it. I was taught in seminary when I was still in the LDS Church that polygamy was still a correct principle, just not one to be lived today, but in the distant future.
All in all, I would have to say that Dawn Porter is a far superior journalist than Scott Pierce. Dawn had no agenda in her reporting, and she is exactly who she presents herself to be. I respect Dawn and think highly of her for her integrity. Scott Pierce, on the other hand, is a journalist who has his leash and collar tied firmly to the LDS Church. That kind indentured servitude has no place in a free society that deserves unbiased reporting.
As far as whether or not I am a Mormon – I remember the day after my father was excommunicated from the LDS Church, the bishop and his counselors showed up at my house. They told my dad, that since he was no longer a member of the Church that he should take off his temple garments.
My dad looked them in the eye and refused to take off his garments. He told them, “I was a Mormon when I went to bed last night, and I was a Mormon when I got out of bed today.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705263055,00.html
Polygamy show stinks
By Scott D. Pierce
Deseret News
Published: Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008 12:08 a.m. MST
Let's not pull any punches here. Dawn Porter is no journalist and cable channel TLC is beyond irresponsible to air her laughably bad program about polygamy.
"Forbidden Love" (Sunday, 11 p.m., TLC) is rather ridiculous to begin with. Porter tells viewers that she's been single for four years and she's looking for love. But first she plans to "experience some of the most extreme ways that women find love and live with men."
Next week: geishas!
But first up: polygamists! And, apparently incapable of spending 30 seconds doing research on the Internet, Porter is also incapable of understanding that Mormons do not practice polygamy. That it was abandoned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1896.
"Polygamy means one husband and lots of wives. It's a basic tenet of the Mormon Church," Porter intones. "Now it's outlawed, but many fundamentalist Mormons hide out in the middle of nowhere in Utah and the states around it."
Again, 30 seconds of research and Porter would have discovered that it hasn't been a basic tenet of the Mormon Church in 118 years.
Porter traveled to Centennial Park, Ariz., to visit a family of polygamists at the time Texas authorities were raiding the FLDS compound. "I couldn't have chosen a worse moment to try and get into a Mormon household," she incorrectly states.
And, reading a headline in the Cedar City Spectrum, she tells viewers about the "400 children taken away from a polygamous Mormon family in Texas. Basically, allegations of child abuse and underage marriage."
So, she not only misinforms viewers because there is no such thing as a "polygamous Mormon family," but she ties the Mormon Church to "allegations of child abuse and underage marriage."
It's flabbergasting.
There are examples throughout the hour of Porter's incompetence. Multiple uses of phrases like "Mormon polygamists" and raising polygamist children to have "true Mormon values."
The show itself is a bore. Porter meets and talks to polygamists and, through a series of interviews, reveals ... pretty much nothing. And, if her "reporting" weren't so amateurish and misleading, it would be almost funny.
It's not so much about the people she's "reporting" on, it's about Porter herself. How she feels about the prospects of entering a polygamous marriage. About how she'd be uncomfortable if her husband was sleeping with another wife.
Oh, and there's dramatic/eerie music playing in the background just to take this from cheesy to cheesiest.
There are moments that are so ludicrous you almost have to wonder if Porter is putting us on. It plays like a parody from "Saturday Night Live."
When she visits a polygamist and his two wives, Porter opines, "So Martha and Temple make house, while Moroni makes whoopee. Sounds like a good deal for a man. Time to take Moroni for a little walk."
Her analysis of the situation at Moroni's house?
"That was nuts. That was properly nuts," Porter says.
And, after discussing religious beliefs with one of the polygamist women, she actually says, "So there it is. The elephant in the room. God."
Profound and analytical she's not.
All of this would be laughable if Porter and TLC weren't so irresponsible. If this is the best TLC can come up with in the way of programming, just shut down the operation right now.
Okay, where do I start with this blatant piece of LDS propaganda other than to *expletive deleted*? Did you see that?? The whole basis for his criticism was that Dawn called us “Mormons”. Well, maybe Dawn called us Mormons, because WE call ourselves Mormons. Arguably, we have more right to call ourselves “Mormons” than the ever-morphing LDS Church. We claim and teach all the old foundational teachings of the early founders of the Mormon church whereas the LDS Church has compromised their tenets to appear more mainstream and palatable to society.
A decade ago, the LDS Church was trying to distance itself from the term “Mormon”. They came out with statements discouraging their members from using the word “Mormon” too often to describe themselves and to emphasize that they are Christians. Why? Because most people associate “Mormons” with practices deemed as bizarre according to modern standards – such as polygamy. And the LDS Church has been on a PR campaign for a while to “clean up its image” and distance itself from its controversial past. One way of doing that was to disassociate themselves from the appellation of “Mormon”.
Then a few years ago, “Big Love” comes out, and the LDS Church is mortified that the modern practice of polygamy is being associated with the Church – even though “Big Love” accurately depicted the current division between polygamist Mormons and mainstream LDS. They even show the discrimination and hostility that many (most) good Latter-Day Saints show to polygamists.
(Last night, my brother-in-law related to me that one of his good LDS neighbors in Utah told him that he wished their prophet would give the okay to kill polygamists, and then he would stock up on his ammunition.)
The LDS Church again issued further statements when the fiasco worsened in Texas this spring. This was due to the fact that polls revealed that most people assumed that the inhabitants of the YFZ Ranch had some connection to the Mormon Church. So in a move that made them look even more stupid, the LDS Church came out with press release after frickin’ press release stating that those who live polygamy today ARE NOT MORMON.
My question to the LDS Church is this: SO WHICH IS IT??? You don’t want to call yourselves “Mormons” anymore? But then you don’t want us to call ourselves “Mormons” either?? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have your proverbial cake and then not expect me to have mine, too.
I have a couple of objections in the article:
“So, she not only misinforms viewers because there is no such thing as a ‘polygamous Mormon family,’ but she ties the Mormon Church to ‘allegations of child abuse and underage marriage.’”
There’s no such thing as a “polygamous Mormon family”? Dude! WE are a polygamous Mormon family!! We baptize our children. We study from the Book of Mormon. We may not have official manuals on what we are or aren’t allowed to teach, but at least we have the pure endowment with all the signs, tokens AND penalties still intact. If that’s not being Mormon, then I don’t know what is.
I was amazed at the level of support that the LDS Church gave to Arizona’s Proposition 102 and California’s Proposition 8. I was just speaking last week to a disaffected LDS man who said that the LDS Church TOLD their members how to vote, and that campaigning for it would count as a church calling. Conversely, those who campaigned AGAINST these propositions found that the Church took punitive action against them by revoking their temple recommends.
Why?? Is it because the Church is against gay marriages? Not so much as they are against polygamy. Proposition 102 put wording in the Arizona Constitution that defined marriage as between “ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN”. This is a definition that is intended to take away right from polygamists, and 90% of the campaign funds came from Mormons. Even though polygamy was once a practice of the Mormon Church, they now fight against those who practice it today, to the point that they are willing to campaign to have our rights taken away.
“Again, 30 seconds of research and Porter would have discovered that it hasn't been a basic tenet of the Mormon Church in 118 years.”
If it is not a tenet of the Mormon Church then why is Section 132 still in the Doctrine & Covenants. Take it out! Get rid of it! It teaches that polygamy is legal in the sight of God.
And the Church hasn’t practiced polygamy in 118 years? That is not true! Modern historians have shown that the Manifesto of 1890 that forbade the LDS from continuing polygamy was a sham, and that Church leaders continued living polygamy for 15 years after the fact. So it is more like 104 years, and they still teach it. I was taught in seminary when I was still in the LDS Church that polygamy was still a correct principle, just not one to be lived today, but in the distant future.
All in all, I would have to say that Dawn Porter is a far superior journalist than Scott Pierce. Dawn had no agenda in her reporting, and she is exactly who she presents herself to be. I respect Dawn and think highly of her for her integrity. Scott Pierce, on the other hand, is a journalist who has his leash and collar tied firmly to the LDS Church. That kind indentured servitude has no place in a free society that deserves unbiased reporting.
As far as whether or not I am a Mormon – I remember the day after my father was excommunicated from the LDS Church, the bishop and his counselors showed up at my house. They told my dad, that since he was no longer a member of the Church that he should take off his temple garments.
My dad looked them in the eye and refused to take off his garments. He told them, “I was a Mormon when I went to bed last night, and I was a Mormon when I got out of bed today.”
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Forbidden Love: Polygamy
Dawn Porter's show is being aired in the States as "Forbidden Love: Polygamy" on TLC, tomorrow night, Sunday, November 16 at 10PM ET.
Just when I thought it was over...
Just when I thought it was over...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
BEARD
I have a new man in my life. His name is Beard. I kind of like him, even though he is itchy and hairy. I have not decided whether or not to keep him or not. But the way he is attached to me, the only way I will be able to get rid of him is to take a razor and scrape him off of me.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
PREJUDICE - Alive & Well in St. Johns, AZ
So I am a discriminate consumer. If I like a place, I will shop there forever (until they give me a reason not to.) Even if they raise prices, I will keep shopping there. I am as faithful as a hound dog, and I never, ever cheat.
But mess with me, my family or my beliefs and I will boycott you forever. Take Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. I love the stuff, but I will never again bring a spoonful of that creamy nectar to my lips. Why? Because they made a donation to Tapestry Against Polygamy. I cannot in good conscience patronize a business that supports a hate group.
Most of my early days in the workforce took place in retail, so the lost ethic of “customer service” was embedded in my psyche. I feel strongly about it. Even though it is virtually nonexistent here in the White Mountains of Arizona, I look for it, hope for it incessantly. And there is nothing like bad service to get me to shoot off a strong letter.
But combine bad customer with prejudice, and you will get not only a nasty letter, but a special mention in my blog.
Let me relate to you the incident in question:
Last Saturday, I was helping a buddy of mine with a project in Eagar, AZ. It is a small town about 60 miles from where I live, and I was planning on being there all day. But I forgot my insulin needles. So I called my wife Temple up and asked her to drive my needles out to me. I was already feeling the effects of being without insulin. So Temple drove all the way (with a new baby) and brought me some needles.
I took her to lunch, and then I signed a check and instructed her to fill up the tank at my favorite gas station in St. Johns. I have patronized this gas station for years, I know the owner, and even worked on her house a couple of years ago. I always write checks there, and this would not be the first time I had sent a check with Temple in this manner.
But on this day, there was a problem…
As Temple walked in to ask the attendant to turn on the pump, she saw the (female) clerk speaking with another customer. As Temple walked through the door, she heard the customer say to the clerk, “I hate polygamy! I could never live it.”
This was an awkward moment, but Temple gassed up and went in to pay with my check. The clerk looked at the check and asked her for her ID.
“This is not your named on the check,” the clerk said. “Who is this ‘Moroni Jessop’ listed on the check?”
Temple tried to explain the situation to her, that I had sent the check with her.
“Well, I don’t know who he is,” said the clerk. “What relation is he to you?”
Without thinking, Temple answered, “He’s my significant other.”
“Oh? And who is this ‘Martha’ lady that is also mentioned on the check?”
Temple was getting frustrated, because – besides it being a personal and private question – there were people in line behind her. But the clerk pressed on:
“Is this his ex-wife? Is this his current wife? Who is she?”
It is pretty damn obvious that the clerk knew who Temple was, who I was and what type of lifestyle we live, and that she was just trying to make life difficult for us. Temple was flustered and not sure how to answer the question.
“Why don’t you call him and ask him?” Temple asked desperately.
“Because there is no way that we could know it is really him on the phone,” the clerk snapped. “And you are not leaving until you find some way to pay this $55!”
Temple called me, in tears, and explained the situation to me. I was pissed. I called the gas station right away and got the clerk on the phone. The exchange went something like this:
Moroni: This is the “Moroni Jessop” that just sent a friend to write a check there.
What’s the problem?
Clerk: I don’t know who you are. The check isn’t in your “friend’s” name, and I can’t
accept it.
Moroni: Why not? I have written checks there for over a decade. The owners know me
and have always accepted my checks.
Clerk: Well, I don’t know who you are.
Moroni: I have written checks there for over a decade. I have done this before. I have
sent checks with people for over a decade. Right now, I am working in Eagar
right now. That’s why I sent the check.
Clerk: Well, I don’t know who you are. So I can’t accept this check.
Moroni: Call the owner. (I mentioned the owner by name.) Call the owner right now
and ask her if she’ll accept my check.
Clerk: There is no way that I am going to accept this check.
Moroni: Call the owner!
Clerk: Not a chance.
Moroni: If this is the way I am going to be treated after patronizing this gas station all of
these years, then you have lost a customer, and I am going to write a letter to
the owner to tell her how you have treated us.
Clerk : (yelling) Fine! Send a letter! I don’t care! (She hangs up on me.)
Temple wound up having to write a check out of her own account, which I was trying to avoid. This was not just an example of bad customer service, but an example of prejudice. It may not quite be Alabama of 1962. But it is pretty bad when someone goes out of their way to deny you a service simply because of prejudice against your lifestyle. I may be a polygamist, but I am also a consumer and a taxpayer. My money is just as good as anyone else’s.
You can bet that the owner will be getting a strong letter from me!
But mess with me, my family or my beliefs and I will boycott you forever. Take Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream. I love the stuff, but I will never again bring a spoonful of that creamy nectar to my lips. Why? Because they made a donation to Tapestry Against Polygamy. I cannot in good conscience patronize a business that supports a hate group.
Most of my early days in the workforce took place in retail, so the lost ethic of “customer service” was embedded in my psyche. I feel strongly about it. Even though it is virtually nonexistent here in the White Mountains of Arizona, I look for it, hope for it incessantly. And there is nothing like bad service to get me to shoot off a strong letter.
But combine bad customer with prejudice, and you will get not only a nasty letter, but a special mention in my blog.
Let me relate to you the incident in question:
Last Saturday, I was helping a buddy of mine with a project in Eagar, AZ. It is a small town about 60 miles from where I live, and I was planning on being there all day. But I forgot my insulin needles. So I called my wife Temple up and asked her to drive my needles out to me. I was already feeling the effects of being without insulin. So Temple drove all the way (with a new baby) and brought me some needles.
I took her to lunch, and then I signed a check and instructed her to fill up the tank at my favorite gas station in St. Johns. I have patronized this gas station for years, I know the owner, and even worked on her house a couple of years ago. I always write checks there, and this would not be the first time I had sent a check with Temple in this manner.
But on this day, there was a problem…
As Temple walked in to ask the attendant to turn on the pump, she saw the (female) clerk speaking with another customer. As Temple walked through the door, she heard the customer say to the clerk, “I hate polygamy! I could never live it.”
This was an awkward moment, but Temple gassed up and went in to pay with my check. The clerk looked at the check and asked her for her ID.
“This is not your named on the check,” the clerk said. “Who is this ‘Moroni Jessop’ listed on the check?”
Temple tried to explain the situation to her, that I had sent the check with her.
“Well, I don’t know who he is,” said the clerk. “What relation is he to you?”
Without thinking, Temple answered, “He’s my significant other.”
“Oh? And who is this ‘Martha’ lady that is also mentioned on the check?”
Temple was getting frustrated, because – besides it being a personal and private question – there were people in line behind her. But the clerk pressed on:
“Is this his ex-wife? Is this his current wife? Who is she?”
It is pretty damn obvious that the clerk knew who Temple was, who I was and what type of lifestyle we live, and that she was just trying to make life difficult for us. Temple was flustered and not sure how to answer the question.
“Why don’t you call him and ask him?” Temple asked desperately.
“Because there is no way that we could know it is really him on the phone,” the clerk snapped. “And you are not leaving until you find some way to pay this $55!”
Temple called me, in tears, and explained the situation to me. I was pissed. I called the gas station right away and got the clerk on the phone. The exchange went something like this:
Moroni: This is the “Moroni Jessop” that just sent a friend to write a check there.
What’s the problem?
Clerk: I don’t know who you are. The check isn’t in your “friend’s” name, and I can’t
accept it.
Moroni: Why not? I have written checks there for over a decade. The owners know me
and have always accepted my checks.
Clerk: Well, I don’t know who you are.
Moroni: I have written checks there for over a decade. I have done this before. I have
sent checks with people for over a decade. Right now, I am working in Eagar
right now. That’s why I sent the check.
Clerk: Well, I don’t know who you are. So I can’t accept this check.
Moroni: Call the owner. (I mentioned the owner by name.) Call the owner right now
and ask her if she’ll accept my check.
Clerk: There is no way that I am going to accept this check.
Moroni: Call the owner!
Clerk: Not a chance.
Moroni: If this is the way I am going to be treated after patronizing this gas station all of
these years, then you have lost a customer, and I am going to write a letter to
the owner to tell her how you have treated us.
Clerk : (yelling) Fine! Send a letter! I don’t care! (She hangs up on me.)
Temple wound up having to write a check out of her own account, which I was trying to avoid. This was not just an example of bad customer service, but an example of prejudice. It may not quite be Alabama of 1962. But it is pretty bad when someone goes out of their way to deny you a service simply because of prejudice against your lifestyle. I may be a polygamist, but I am also a consumer and a taxpayer. My money is just as good as anyone else’s.
You can bet that the owner will be getting a strong letter from me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
