- Home
- Culture & Society
- Society
- Mormon Fundamentalism Versus Democracy
Mormon Fundamentalism Versus Democracy
- By Susanna Barlow
- Published 10/18/2008
- Society
- Unrated
Susanna Barlow
Susanna Barlow is the 23rd child of 46 children, the quintessential middle child. Her fundamentalist religious upbringing shaped her life, her values, and her views on literally everything. Though no longer affiliated with polygamous groups on a religious level, she is surrounded by family & friends who practice polygamy. For more information, visit: Susanna Barlow.
View all articles by Susanna Barlow
Polygamy has been around since ancient times. It was lived by Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. It flourished in ancient Greece in the form of concubinage. In Macedonia it was acceptable for a man to have several wives to ensure that there was a choice of a male heir. This was particularly true of royalty and the ruling classes of aristocracy. In ancient Greece there was a tolerance of diverse sexual relationships including homosexuality. In the past, polygamy and its variants have always been cultural or social in practice and not religious. Although monogamy was also practiced it was romanticized or literally Romanized during the conquest of Greece by the Roman Empire in the first century B.C.
It was the Roman Empire that introduced the concept of monogamy or exclusivity in relationships. Christianity adopted monogamy from the Greco- Roman ideals and ultimately established the current monogamist standard. It was also the first time that monogamy became a religious issue thus increasing problems concerning adultery and divorce of royalties that were subject to papal approval. Polygamy afforded an emperor or kings the assurance of an heir to the throne. The enforcement of monogamy by the Catholic Church resulted in such barbarism as the beheading of Anne Boylen by King Henry the VIII in his desperate attempt to secure a son for the throne. The institution of marriage and how it is defined has been a major player in establishing social and cultural standards around the world for centuries and continues to challenge societies today.
Historically, marriage has been both economic and social in nature and is intrinsically tribal. It has distinct survival motivations. Marriages, particularly arranged ones, allowed a family of lower status the opportunity for greater wealth and position in the community. A tribal system does not support individualism which is a threat to the survival of the tribe. In an egalitarian society, marriage is not necessary for survival for each member of that society has equal rights and opportunities. With the advent of democracy came the birth of individualism and the right to autonomy. Therefore the question must be raised, is polygamy incompatible with democracy?
Polygamy outside of religion can be seen as a form of free love, not restricting men or women in their marital relationships. Patriarchal polygamy initiates the first hierarchal tendencies, diminishing equality among parties. Religious, patriarchal polygamy by its very design is tribal. Obviously, organized religion, polygamy or patriarchy can co-exist separately within a democracy but the combination of all three abridges freedom and obliterates individuality.
Mormon fundamentalism has never been openly practiced in a democratic society. In 1852, when Mormons first practiced polygamy openly it was outside the United States in the then Utah Territory. Brigham Young was governor of the Territory as well as President of the church and had created a virtual theocracy. There were three factors at play. One was the establishment of a religion; the second was the patriarchy that was inherent to that religion and the third element was the installment of polygamy as a tenet necessary for salvation of the soul. These factors supported the control the church exercised over business as well as personal affairs. The early Mormon Church had begun democratizing when the United States government separated church and state after the death of Brigham Young. But it wasn’t until the Church gave up one of these three elements; a public renouncement of polygamy in a manifesto, that they were allowed statehood in 1896. This is when the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalism parted ways.
Mormon fundamentalism as it stands today is incompatible with democracy because of these three combined elements; polygamy, patriarchy and organized religion. The secretive nature of these communities adds to the incompatibility. Any one of these can separately exist within a democratic system but combined into one, becomes forcefully opposed to democracy.
Here is the paradox: Only in America can a radical fundamentalist religion survive because of the free environment that supports it. But it cannot survive forever.
Consider the slavery question during the formation of our country and its constitution. What if slavery had been posed as a religious right guaranteed by the first amendment? What then? As it was it could not be resolved because it violated the freedom of states’ rights but it also violated the declaration of independence at the
same time. The founding fathers' solution was a slow and gradual end to slavery. It was a risk that resulted in the cessation of states and the Civil War. Without regulation on the treatment of slaves and the buying and selling of human beings the issue quickly became so deeply rooted in the fabric of our new nation that it required bloodshed to end it and another hundred years before the civil rights movement began to open doors for a truer equality. History has shown that freedom and equality is not the same thing but without freedom equality is impossible. This is the conflict and governmental concern surrounding the FLDS and other splinter groups of Mormon fundamentalism. How can a system that violates individualism and equality continue unabated in America? It cannot.
When one is free, that freedom can be used to enslave others. But to take away one person’s freedom in exchange for another person’s freedom ends in a catch 22. The freedoms to practice polygamy, to live a patriarchal law and teach religious doctrine are all freedoms that must be preserved. But the freedom to deny a person the right to choose a spouse, the opportunity for education and many of the smaller but no less significant freedoms that are taken away in the name of another person’s freedom to live his/her religion violates that foundation on which the original freedom stands. This cannot remain so. In the current climate of our country there is far too much exposure and after the Eldorado Texas incident and the FLDS exposing their culture on YouTube and CNN, can never return underground and survive as it has in the past. Mormon fundamentalism cannot ask the constitution of the United States to uphold its right to religious freedom without also upholding the freedoms of its members that the constitution guarantees to them.
Our constitution promises freedom of religion and the expression thereof. In the case Reynolds versus the United States in 1878 the Bigamy Act was challenged. What followed was indictment for Reynolds who was convicted, imprisoned and fined. The court determined that the first amendment protected the rights of belief and opinion versus the rights of conduct. The argument was that ancient religions also espoused human sacrifice for example, and must the first amendment allow that kind of violation of freedoms in the name of freedom of religion? Some have scoffed at the comparison of Mormon fundamentalism and human sacrifice but the similarities are eerily familiar. Individuality and freedom are laid upon the altar, the sacrifice of personal will and the right to make choices becomes a requirement.
Mormon fundamentalism in its original form is opposed to a true democracy. The foundation of democracy rests on a single notion: that the individual matters. Mormon fundamentalism denies the individual rights in order to preserve the principles of the religion itself. Then individuality becomes a threat and is snuffed out in the hearts and minds of the youngest members before it has a chance to take root thereby ensuring another generation who will follow the hierarchy of power and authority without question. Individuality wanes in preservation of the whole and what almost inevitably results is the worship of leaders. A democracy is designed to eliminate the pitfalls of leader worship because the individual having sacrificed their identity find it within the leader. As long as a people worship their leaders a true democracy cannot exist.
But the US government cannot shove democracy down the FLDS community throat with SWAT teams and CPS officials. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink as the old aphorism goes. Yet, there is conflict because of the inherent nature of abuse and inequality that exists in these communities. So are citizens of the United States free to create a hierarchy that discredits and cancels the systems that allows it? This is why the problem is yet to be solved.
If you look at history for answers it seems there is only one obvious solution; a revolution. Mormon fundamentalism is in need of its own little revolution. And who can perform this task? Only the lowest and most oppressed of its members: the women. There are a few splinter groups that are considered more mainstream who have evolved into a somewhat more democratic system who have accomplished this and they are not the target of media attention and tell-all books. But there are others such as the FLDS that have become more radical and more hierarchal with time. All systems will either evolve or regress and history proves this again and again.
Mormon fundamentalist women need not abandon a single aspect of their faith to demand democracy. Let those great ones that founded our country be the teachers and examples for those women who are willing to take that first terrifying step forward. It can be accomplished and must be accomplished, in true democratic form, one individual at a time.
It was the Roman Empire that introduced the concept of monogamy or exclusivity in relationships. Christianity adopted monogamy from the Greco- Roman ideals and ultimately established the current monogamist standard. It was also the first time that monogamy became a religious issue thus increasing problems concerning adultery and divorce of royalties that were subject to papal approval. Polygamy afforded an emperor or kings the assurance of an heir to the throne. The enforcement of monogamy by the Catholic Church resulted in such barbarism as the beheading of Anne Boylen by King Henry the VIII in his desperate attempt to secure a son for the throne. The institution of marriage and how it is defined has been a major player in establishing social and cultural standards around the world for centuries and continues to challenge societies today.
Historically, marriage has been both economic and social in nature and is intrinsically tribal. It has distinct survival motivations. Marriages, particularly arranged ones, allowed a family of lower status the opportunity for greater wealth and position in the community. A tribal system does not support individualism which is a threat to the survival of the tribe. In an egalitarian society, marriage is not necessary for survival for each member of that society has equal rights and opportunities. With the advent of democracy came the birth of individualism and the right to autonomy. Therefore the question must be raised, is polygamy incompatible with democracy?
Polygamy outside of religion can be seen as a form of free love, not restricting men or women in their marital relationships. Patriarchal polygamy initiates the first hierarchal tendencies, diminishing equality among parties. Religious, patriarchal polygamy by its very design is tribal. Obviously, organized religion, polygamy or patriarchy can co-exist separately within a democracy but the combination of all three abridges freedom and obliterates individuality.
Mormon fundamentalism has never been openly practiced in a democratic society. In 1852, when Mormons first practiced polygamy openly it was outside the United States in the then Utah Territory. Brigham Young was governor of the Territory as well as President of the church and had created a virtual theocracy. There were three factors at play. One was the establishment of a religion; the second was the patriarchy that was inherent to that religion and the third element was the installment of polygamy as a tenet necessary for salvation of the soul. These factors supported the control the church exercised over business as well as personal affairs. The early Mormon Church had begun democratizing when the United States government separated church and state after the death of Brigham Young. But it wasn’t until the Church gave up one of these three elements; a public renouncement of polygamy in a manifesto, that they were allowed statehood in 1896. This is when the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalism parted ways.
Mormon fundamentalism as it stands today is incompatible with democracy because of these three combined elements; polygamy, patriarchy and organized religion. The secretive nature of these communities adds to the incompatibility. Any one of these can separately exist within a democratic system but combined into one, becomes forcefully opposed to democracy.
Here is the paradox: Only in America can a radical fundamentalist religion survive because of the free environment that supports it. But it cannot survive forever.
Consider the slavery question during the formation of our country and its constitution. What if slavery had been posed as a religious right guaranteed by the first amendment? What then? As it was it could not be resolved because it violated the freedom of states’ rights but it also violated the declaration of independence at the
When one is free, that freedom can be used to enslave others. But to take away one person’s freedom in exchange for another person’s freedom ends in a catch 22. The freedoms to practice polygamy, to live a patriarchal law and teach religious doctrine are all freedoms that must be preserved. But the freedom to deny a person the right to choose a spouse, the opportunity for education and many of the smaller but no less significant freedoms that are taken away in the name of another person’s freedom to live his/her religion violates that foundation on which the original freedom stands. This cannot remain so. In the current climate of our country there is far too much exposure and after the Eldorado Texas incident and the FLDS exposing their culture on YouTube and CNN, can never return underground and survive as it has in the past. Mormon fundamentalism cannot ask the constitution of the United States to uphold its right to religious freedom without also upholding the freedoms of its members that the constitution guarantees to them.
Our constitution promises freedom of religion and the expression thereof. In the case Reynolds versus the United States in 1878 the Bigamy Act was challenged. What followed was indictment for Reynolds who was convicted, imprisoned and fined. The court determined that the first amendment protected the rights of belief and opinion versus the rights of conduct. The argument was that ancient religions also espoused human sacrifice for example, and must the first amendment allow that kind of violation of freedoms in the name of freedom of religion? Some have scoffed at the comparison of Mormon fundamentalism and human sacrifice but the similarities are eerily familiar. Individuality and freedom are laid upon the altar, the sacrifice of personal will and the right to make choices becomes a requirement.
Mormon fundamentalism in its original form is opposed to a true democracy. The foundation of democracy rests on a single notion: that the individual matters. Mormon fundamentalism denies the individual rights in order to preserve the principles of the religion itself. Then individuality becomes a threat and is snuffed out in the hearts and minds of the youngest members before it has a chance to take root thereby ensuring another generation who will follow the hierarchy of power and authority without question. Individuality wanes in preservation of the whole and what almost inevitably results is the worship of leaders. A democracy is designed to eliminate the pitfalls of leader worship because the individual having sacrificed their identity find it within the leader. As long as a people worship their leaders a true democracy cannot exist.
But the US government cannot shove democracy down the FLDS community throat with SWAT teams and CPS officials. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink as the old aphorism goes. Yet, there is conflict because of the inherent nature of abuse and inequality that exists in these communities. So are citizens of the United States free to create a hierarchy that discredits and cancels the systems that allows it? This is why the problem is yet to be solved.
If you look at history for answers it seems there is only one obvious solution; a revolution. Mormon fundamentalism is in need of its own little revolution. And who can perform this task? Only the lowest and most oppressed of its members: the women. There are a few splinter groups that are considered more mainstream who have evolved into a somewhat more democratic system who have accomplished this and they are not the target of media attention and tell-all books. But there are others such as the FLDS that have become more radical and more hierarchal with time. All systems will either evolve or regress and history proves this again and again.
Mormon fundamentalist women need not abandon a single aspect of their faith to demand democracy. Let those great ones that founded our country be the teachers and examples for those women who are willing to take that first terrifying step forward. It can be accomplished and must be accomplished, in true democratic form, one individual at a time.
