posted
No, I think I picked it up, read the cover, and put it down when I was in my "true crime" phase. After reading the amazon blurb, I think I'm glad I did.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I've actually read it a couple of times. Good book. I realize that it doesn't give the offical version of certain aspects of Mormon church history, and that some people here will avoid it for that reason. And that's fine if you don't want to read it for that reason. But I think Krakauer does a very good job of illustrating what can happen, in general, when religion turns into fanaticism.
There is an especially interesting discussion, during the description of the trial of one of the Laffertys (can't recall which one right now) of the dangers of trying to claim that someone who commits a crime because "God told me to" is insane, especially in a culture such as our here in the States, where the majority of people are religious to some degree and many claim to communicate with God in one form or another.
Edited to remove errant apostrophe.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a discussion about it a little while ago.
I read the book. You can see my comments in the attached link, but essentailly I thought it was a good read. I've heard it listed as being anti-Mormon, and I think it was marketed that way, but I did not find the actual book to be so. I think if you want to understand the history of Fundamentalist Mormons, this is an excellent book to read. If you want an interesting perspective on the psychology of faith, I also think this is an excellent book to read.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I assume you mean splinter groups not currently associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Because that's kind of a confusing (and often misleading) term. And not what I would call accurate.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The history in it is sloppy. It's good if you want a certain perspective, but the history isn't great.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I assume you mean splinter groups not currently associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Because that's kind of a confusing (and often misleading) term. And not what I would call accurate.
I know the LDS church has no connection with them beyond a shared history. However, they consider themselves Fundamentalist Mormons and thus I think it's reasonable to call them what they call themselves. What would you consider a better term?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a non-Mormom, so I can't judge how accurate it is in terms of representing soem of the finer points of LDS history or dogma, but I found the book to be very good and worth reading. I especially liked the question of where to draw the line between faith and reason, i.e., when does blind faith become an unhealthy compulsion. I thought that the book did a good job of making it clear that the Lafferty's and the other splinter groups did not represent mainstream LDS, but I'm also courious about why LDS-faithful readers thought that the book may have misrepresented LDS history or dogma.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume you mean splinter groups not currently associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Because that's kind of a confusing (and often misleading) term. And not what I would call accurate.
The book is about members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Krakauer refers to them that way because that's the way they refer to themselves, and he makes it very clear from the start that the FLDS is a splinter group.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:but I'm also courious about why LDS-faithful readers thought that the book may have misrepresented LDS history or dogma
I thought the official LDSresponse did a decent job explaining why. Basically, it comes down to comparing Joseph Smith and the Early Church's history with the behavior and beliefs of the Off-shoots. Then, with the trick of words, he basically says that they may not be related, but the mainstream LDS could easily become the same kinds of antisocial and dangerous. Of course, he ties this to all religious people and groups. He believes that religious faith, of any kind, is a violent and immoral disaster waiting to happen.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I know the LDS church has no connection with them beyond a shared history. However, they consider themselves Fundamentalist Mormons and thus I think it's reasonable to call them what they call themselves.
I don't think I've ever actually seen them refer to themselves as "Fundamentalist Mormons"...have they?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasional, thanks for the link. I understand why LDS would be upset. I'm less concerned that LDS readers might find some nits to pick (no matter how justified) by a book written by a non-beliver, but it's a fair criticism of Krakauer that he tried to tie-in too many unrelated, non-flattering historical incidents, LDS beleifs, and fringe groups to the Lafferty's crimes. To Krakuaer the Lafferty crimes were just an excuse to present his "history" of the LDS. That said, I still found the book worth reading.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taal, the official name of Warren Jeffs's church is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
For me, "Mormon" refers to any of the churches that claim emergence from Joseph Smith's restoration - if you believe the Book of Mormon is scripture and that Joseph Smith was a prophet, you're part of the Mormon movement. This would include the Reorganized group (now the Community of Christ), the various fundamentalist groups (of which the Fundamentalist CoJCofLDS is one), the Bickertonite movement, and several others, including, of course, the Salt Lake City Church. So I think fundamentalist Mormon is not a bad term - it encompasses all the splinter groups who embrace polygamy as an essential part of Joseph Smith's restoration.
I think the attempt of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (as opposed, amusingly, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon church headquartered in Wisconsin) to separate the fundamentalists from the term 'Mormon' is driven more by concern for public relations than theological or historical accuracy.
My review of UTBOH is on the link - suffice it to say, an entertaining read, but as history, sensationalistic, self-consciously lurid, and poorly done, making some basic historical mistakes and assumptions not warranted by the historical record. I detail some specific reasons there.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, gotcha. This one. I was looking at the link to the official church response. For a wild moment I wondered if I'd missed something.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just unfortunate if "Under the Banner of Heaven" is your sole source of information about "mormons". And you happen to be my husband's supervisor.
She did introduce us to beer brats, though, which I heartily enjoyed without remembering my brave words over on the Cactus.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Taal, the official name of Warren Jeffs's church is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
For me, "Mormon" refers to any of the churches that claim emergence from Joseph Smith's restoration
I know the name of the FLDS Church. It was just stated that they refered to themselves as "Fundamentalist Mormons". I think that, when it comes to reporting, that's an important distinction.
apart from what it may mean "to you", I've noted that most that come from the "Latter-Day Saint Movement" do not wish to be called 'Mormons', because of the association with the Salt Lake Church. Heck, the RLDS, which as far as I know was the largest non-Utah "Latter Day Saint" breakoff, changed their name to Community of Christ, and are intentionally shying themselves away from anything resembling the Utah Latter-Day Saints (and what is generally recognized as 'Mormonism'), and will have nothing to do with the term or label 'Mormon'.
The point is, if LDS believe the term in relation to the FLDS isn't accurate, confusing, and request the media not to use the term...
...and if the FLDS don't even use the term - then why do people who aren't even associated with the group 'defend' the use of a term to describe a group who hasn't actually come out and said they like being referred to as such?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
I've met one polygamist who referred to herself as a Mormon fundamentalist and heard two others - one from Jeffs's group - do the same. The FLDS guy began his speech by asking, "What is a Mormon fundamentalist?"
The website 'www.mormonfundamentalism.org' is affiliated with the Apostolic United Brethren, a fundamentalist group distinct from Jeffs's founded by the Allred family; it defines 'Mormon fundamentalism' as I described it above. Thus, I'd be reluctant to assume that fundamentalists as a whole distance themselves from the term.
Indeed, it's my impression that many fundamentalists feel the same proprietary relationship to the term 'Mormon' that the Salt Lake church does. They embrace the term 'fundamentalism' for the same reason that Christian fundamentalists do; it's a badge of honor, not an epithet.
You're correct about the name change of the CoC; they're seeking to distance themselves from the Utah church, and chose to dump a name that included the word 'Reorganized' for that reason. However, based on my conversations with RLDS (I know one member fairly well; have met two others) about the distinction, they certainly have a sense of a larger 'Mormon' movement that they believe themselves to be part of. Though many RLDS today believe that Joseph Smith eventally became a fallen prophet (given the growing incontrovertable evidence about polygamy), they still cite him frequently and use the Book of Mormon.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: why do people who aren't even associated with the group 'defend' the use of a term to describe a group who hasn't actually come out and said they like being referred to as such?
The point is that it Mormons (the SLC popular brand) do not like any association with the polygs. It tarnishes their image. The point is it seems NO-ONE likes to be referred to as Mormons. The SLC LDS church has stopped using the term and has actively tried to get members to stop using the term to identify themselves.
When was the last time you heard a jingle at the end of an LDS commercial that ends with "-The Mormons!"?
Mormon is term people use because it helps them define a group of worshipers who believe in the authenticity and divinity of the Book of Mormon. They both do.
Of course the different branches of Mormonism that hate anyone using a word that might signal they are related can pretend they are distant cousins; however, they are much closer to being half-siblings. They do share the same father and sacred book.
The term is not inappropriate. Neither is identifying the Warren Jeff’s group as being fundamentalist.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem I have with the term (after thinking long and hard about it) is what it implies. One of the fundamental truths we hold is that we are organized in a certain way, and that our current prophet is Gordon B. Hinckley, and that we follow what our church leaders tell us to do; revelation is constant, church policies are dynamic, things change and we accept the changes. One of the things they tell us is that we should not currently practice polygamy. Once people stop following the teachings of the current prophet and split away and have their own prophet, or, to my mind, who they believe to be a prophet, they are no longer part of our church. Disregarding this fundamental teaching means that they are not fundamentalists; calling them such implies that polygamy is a fundamental belief of our church and it's really not. (Different people place more or less importance on it currently, but it's a rather moot point since it's strictly disallowed anyway.) In deciding that polygamy was a fundamental belief, the splinter group(s) disregarded the fundamental belief behind that belief-- that we are led by a prophet of God who recieves revelation for the Church. So I don't see them as fundamentalists at all, and find the logic which would lead them to call themselves such flawed.
I don't mind saying "FLDS" since that's the legal name of the group, what they call themselves. But extrapolating that to "Fundamentalist Mormons" bothers me. So in reply to "what should we call them", I would say whatever the actual name of their church is or the direct abbreviation thereof sits much better with me.
I realize that this is a thoroughly LDS perspective. But if there are any FLDS people on the board who would like to fight me for the term, I'd be happy to set up a mud-wrestling thread to do so. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: The problem I have with the term (after thinking long and hard about it) is what it implies. One of the fundamental truths we hold is that we are organized in a certain way, and that our current prophet is Gordon B. Hinckley, and that we follow what our church leaders tell us to do; revelation is constant, church policies are dynamic, things change and we accept the changes. One of the things they tell us is that we should not currently practice polygamy. Once people stop following the teachings of the current prophet and split away and have their own prophet, or, to my mind, who they believe to be a prophet, they are no longer part of our church. Disregarding this fundamental teaching means that they are not fundamentalists; calling them such implies that polygamy is a fundamental belief of our church and it's really not. (Different people place more or less importance on it currently, but it's a rather moot point since it's strictly disallowed anyway.) In deciding that polygamy was a fundamental belief, the splinter group(s) disregarded the fundamental belief behind that belief-- that we are led by a prophet of God who recieves revelation for the Church. So I don't see them as fundamentalists at all, and find the logic which would lead them to call themselves such flawed.
I don't mind saying "FLDS" since that's the legal name of the group, what they call themselves. But extrapolating that to "Fundamentalist Mormons" bothers me. So in reply to "what should we call them", I would say whatever the actual name of their church is or the direct abbreviation thereof sits much better with me.
I realize that this is a thoroughly LDS perspective. But if there are any FLDS people on the board who would like to fight me for the term, I'd be happy to set up a mud-wrestling thread to do so.
quote: In deciding that polygamy was a fundamental belief, the splinter group(s) disregarded the fundamental belief behind that belief-- that we are led by a prophet of God who recieves revelation for the Church.
It is their belief that they are the ones following a prophet God led by revelation (initially handed that authority by John Taylor) and that the SLC LDS church is the one in the wrong. However sketchy their evidence for that, that's their belief and it doesn't seem like you're considering that. However due to the offense it caused, I'll try to remember to say "FLDS" instead of "Fundamentalist Mormon".
quote: it's a fair criticism of Krakauer that he tried to tie-in too many unrelated, non-flattering historical incidents, LDS beleifs, and fringe groups to the Lafferty's crimes
I can agree with that.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read Jon Krakauer's "Into Thin Ice" which was a good read, but enraged the other members of the expeditions that were involved in the tragedy. Based on that book, there are plenty of reasons to question his journalistic credibility without even opening "Under the Banner of Heaven".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is their belief that they are the ones following a prophet God led by revelation (initially handed that authority by John Taylor) and that the SLC LDS church is the one in the wrong. However sketchy their evidence for that, that's their belief and it doesn't seem like you're considering that. However due to the offense it caused, I'll try to remember to say "FLDS" instead of "Fundamentalist Mormon".
Right, that's why I tried to use phrases like "to my mind" and "our beliefs" and "they believe" and mentioned that that was an LDS perspective. Because I was trying very hard not to disrespect their religion, no matter how wrong I think they are, while still trying to explain why the phrase bothers me. I'm sorry if I did take an offensive tone toward them despite my efforts.
Thank you for trying to understand what I'm saying, though.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well, at the very least, I'll disrespect their social structure. One of the things I liked about reading banner was that it helped use the FLDS as a case study in how dysfunctional a polygamist social structure can quickly become.
Since they've essentially relegated women to the role of a traded commodity, the end result is a surplus of men. What this necessitates is the systematic excommunication of as many teenaged boys as the higher-ups can possibly manage; no reason is too trivial. They have to dump their surplus males as fast as possible to reduce competition for wives.
They also have to become an insular, fanatical regime; the quintessential cult. The social liberties of modern society are anathema to their desired state of women as 'celestial' property and class status indicators. The more that the outside world leaks in, the more women will want to (and succeed in) escaping, which is bad for the poly barons. The only way to maintain their system is with full indoctrination -- and isolation from outside mentalities -- that raises as many girls as possible to be reliant on a cultural structure that makes them into adolescent brides for arranged marriages. Hence the edict that all FLDS children are not to set foot in any schools that the cult leaders do not run.
Thankfully, the vertical structure that is required to maintain such a state of affairs (complete with 'communal' land and property ownership) is vulnerable to quick disruption.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"They also have to become an insular, fanatical regime; the quintessential cult. The social liberties of modern society are anathema to their desired state of women as 'celestial' property and class status indicators."
I don't agree that these things go together. Rather, I would say you have to become insular, fanatical, and protective when the alternative is give up your faith or be punsished by the State. At that point you become an underground society that can only survive by ruthless lying, cheating, and hiding. I fully believe that if polygamy was made legal that half of what these people have to do to keep their faith alive would be gotten under control. I mean come on, its not as if these same problems have gone away in open society in our monogamous relationships. As I have heard said before, the only difference between modern monogamy and polygamy is that polygamists consider themselves married.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I agree with you, Occasional. And as much as I may personally find polygamy incomprehensible, I also am not sure that it should be something with which the government should concern itself.
posted
They have to stay insular, fanatical, and protective because they break the law, sure. But forget the law, and let's sidestep arguments over the substance of making polygamy illegal, since that's mostly irrelevant to my appraisal.
They have to maintain being insular, fanatical, and protective because the open dissemination of ideas would rob them of the docile, obedient trophey women that they want to dole out to their men as celestial trophies.
The FLDS has banned open media in all forms in its enclaves, and this includes any and all books that you aren't specifically allowed to read. This is to keep them from coming afoul of the 'purity corrupting' influences of the entheta. I mean apostates.
It's required to create the indoctrinating environment needed to perpetuate the system.
It's really not so much about hiding their members from the view of society, as it is about hiding the view of society from their members. In the long run, it's more important to perpetuating their lifestyle, and the interests of the leaders who earn their lavish, lavish lifestyles off of the people they hold in their sway.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like the government to concern itself with underage marriages, lack of education, domestic violence, access to medical care, the ability of women to control reproduction, etc. So in those respects, I support interference with polygamous or any other kind of relationship which harbor such abuses.
However, I've got zippo problem with adults being in any kind of mutually consenting relationship. Whatever floats your boat. As long as you don't come bother my boat. Unless you need, like, an egg or a cup of sugar. Or to borrow my jump cables. That's ok. (Eg. if I want to be in a monogamous relationship, please don't make me try to be in a polygamous one. If I want to be in a polygamous relationship, please leave me alone as well. We're all fine here now, thank you. How're you?)
*** Trivia: Name the classic SF film my last two sentences are from.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Samprimary, I do not doubt that in the particular groups and cases you are thinking of that you are correct. The problem I am having (and I think Samarkand has touched on it) is that polygamists are not alone in those questionable practices. Underage marriage, rape, lack of education, domestic violence, multiple "trophy" women, even a banning of some books and media are all done by the so-called open society.
I just don't think ALL polygamist groups are that way. Many groups live under your noses and go to your schools and keep to themselves in the open. The media simply doesn't report that because its not as sensationalist. My wife for instance, who lived a short time in Utah, can sometimes pick out where polygamists live or who one of them are without having to go to any compounds. However, I believe that because of the illegal nature of the marriages the religious lifestyle is more prone to abuses because they already are living under the social radar for self protection.
I'd hate to say it, but so far as I have heard "Big Love" is probably closer to the truth than "Cooper 360" or the AP - or Banner of Heaven. The FLDS have been agressive and visible more than is comfortable for a lot of polygamists. Another irony has been the more they have tried to shun society and gather in their own secretive group, the more open they have become to the prying eyes of others. Most polygamists are happy living double lives.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I fully believe that if polygamy was made legal that half of what these people have to do to keep their faith alive would be gotten under control.
The FLDS have a sect in Bountiful, British Columbia where their activities are legal. From what I've read, the abuses are in no way less than what happens in the U.S.. As you've already pointed out, most polygamists are not nearly as extreme as the FLDS. Additionally, polygamists are rarely, rarely prosecuted. Even Warren Jeffs isn't being charged with bigamy, he's being charged with having sexual relations with a minor. I think that they became insular, fanatical, and protective because it puts more power in the hands of the leaders.
I would have no moral qualms with legalizing polygamy, but I don't think you'd see any changes in the evil done by the FLDS.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The FLDS have a sect in Bountiful, British Columbia where their activities are legal.
Do you have sources for this? I am not as sure that Canada has legalized polygamy. And yes, the FLDS are extreme. However, according to Samprimary and others they are the norm and not the "extreme" as you put it. That continues to be the argument of those who want polygamy to remain illegal even though very few are prosecuted. I guess you could say that polygamy is legal by default. Still, if you are found to be polygamous you don't need to go to jail or pay a hefty fine to be held liable. Ostracism and legal threats are enough to keep the secretive ant-social network alive. Don't think they have forgotten the 1880's crusades and the 1950's crackdown. Just look at what Senate minority leader Reed said about them to see how close they always are to getting rounded up.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In 1990, some women who had fled Bountiful demanded an investigation into why the police were ignoring the multiple marriages in the town. Two years later, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) conducted an investigation in Bountiful and recommended that charges of polygamy be laid against two men. 9 The Attorney General of the province of British Columbia decided to not proceed. The office obtained two independent legal opinions. Both agreed that the courts would probably find the federal anti-bigamy law to be unconstitutional. It conflicts with the Mormons' religious freedom as guaranteed by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- the country's constitution. If brought to court, the Province would probably lose the case.
So I guess it's not technically legal, but it might as well be. I watched an A&E program about the FLDS and it made the claim that it was legal.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem I have with the term (after thinking long and hard about it) is what it implies. One of the fundamental truths we hold is that we are organized in a certain way, and that our current prophet is Gordon B. Hinckley, and that we follow what our church leaders tell us to do; revelation is constant, church policies are dynamic, things change and we accept the changes. One of the things they tell us is that we should not currently practice polygamy. Once people stop following the teachings of the current prophet and split away and have their own prophet, or, to my mind, who they believe to be a prophet, they are no longer part of our church. Disregarding this fundamental teaching means that they are not fundamentalists; calling them such implies that polygamy is a fundamental belief of our church and it's really not. (Different people place more or less importance on it currently, but it's a rather moot point since it's strictly disallowed anyway.) In deciding that polygamy was a fundamental belief, the splinter group(s) disregarded the fundamental belief behind that belief-- that we are led by a prophet of God who recieves revelation for the Church. So I don't see them as fundamentalists at all, and find the logic which would lead them to call themselves such flawed.
KQ, I completely agree with you. I don't like the term "fundamentalist Mormons" either, but it isn't the Mormon part. Saying seems to aknowledge that the polygamy is the sine qua non of Mormonism, and I don't believe that. It's like asking that others call us The One True Church. I believe that, but I don't think it's fair to demand that other people who don't believe that call us that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, in all seriousness, there is a church right now that has, as the theme and messsage of their latest door-to-door tracting ministry, "The End of False Religion Is Near."
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: [QB] Star Wars, the first one. That was easy.
Samprimary, I do not doubt that in the particular groups and cases you are thinking of that you are correct. The problem I am having (and I think Samarkand has touched on it) is that polygamists are not alone in those questionable practices. Underage marriage, rape, lack of education, domestic violence, multiple "trophy" women, even a banning of some books and media are all done by the so-called open society.
The primary difference being that the FLDS is enculturating it, where modern society relegates it to the status of deviance. The dysfunction of their insular society is not by accident; it is the unavoidable product of the centrality of 'celestial marriage' in their cultural values.
Keep in mind that at no point am I equating the FLDS dysfunction as being inherent to polygamy. The FLDS dysfunction is more about how it's a dominating religious regime that commands ultimate fealty in a purposefully isolating social structure that trades women as commodity.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right, that's why I tried to use phrases like "to my mind" and "our beliefs" and "they believe" and mentioned that that was an LDS perspective. Because I was trying very hard not to disrespect their religion, no matter how wrong I think they are, while still trying to explain why the phrase bothers me. I'm sorry if I did take an offensive tone toward them despite my efforts.
Ok, I'm not trying to aggravate you with this, but your attitude seems somewhat ironic to me given some discussions I have participated in with LDS members concerning their self identification as Christians. To many historic Christians, people who follow the LDS faith are not Christians because of the same reasons you do not consider some of these splinter groups "Mormon." But LDS members often argue that they consider themselves to be Christians and I have respected their claim in the past as long as they are aware that I disagree. So if a splinter group considers itself Fundamentalist Mormon, it seems unfair for you to reject their claim. If you are going to repudiate the association by name of splinter groups, you cannot simultaneously argue back against a group which views all book of Mormon based religions as an incorrect splinter group as well, and expect those outsiders to accept your own association by name with them.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's not rejecting that they are Mormons. She's rejecting that they are following the fundamentals and therefore should not be called fundamentalist. She (and I) do not believe that being Mormon now hinges or has ever hinged on polygamy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
