I’m not offended. I reread my post and realized it sounded more serious than I intended (I tried to lighten it up with the freaky pun, but probably wasn’t successful), and really, I thought it was funny.

My post poked fun at only a single group who also call themselves “Mormon Fundamentalists.” They purport to speak for Mormons, so I use the word “Mormon” in the same sense they do. If my language was sloppy, I’m sorry, and if I didn’t make it clear enough in my post that I was speaking only of Peace Monastery, then please accept this as a clarification.

The only thing I’d like to add is that polygamy, mathematically, can’t ever work without some alienation of men, as well. For ever gunner with ten wives, there are nine sad, lonely men that have to be “dealt with” in some way or another. And, evolutionarily (if that’s a word), the genetic ramifications are extreme.

Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a douchebag and going on and on (because I could, and sometimes do, on this topic), I’ll just point out a really excellent law review article–Shayna Sigman’s “Everything Lawyers Know About Polygamy Is Wrong,” 16 Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 101. It’s an interesting read, and lacks the sensationalism that taints a lot of the reporting that’s gone on the last few weeks.

I’ve gotta say, though Steve, you should probably be more careful how you toss the word “Mormon” around. There are significant differences between rank-and-file Mormons (as in Mitt Romney….and myself) and the group led by the man pictured in the front page of your post.

In fact, I’ve been researching Warren Jeffs’ group (called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or “FLDS”) for the last two years as part of a project for a professor on campus, and so I’m pretty qualified on the ins and outs of both the mainstream Mormon church and Mormon Fundamentalists, like the FLDS.

So, in the interest of clarification, let me enlighten you a bit:

The fundamentalists with the “floral patterns” as you refer to them, are not in Salt Lake City. They are in Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT (twin towns that straddle the AZ/UT border). They are also in several outposts that they have established since the State of Utah removed the trustees of the Church’s finacial arm (the United Effort Plan Trust) and appointed a receiver over the trust. The outposts are in El Dorado, TX (prounounced El-Dor-AY-do, apparently), Mancos, CO, and somewhere in the middle of South Dakota (there is no town). Other members of this group also live in southern British Columbia and Alberta Canada.

So, when you say “convert now” I hope you understand that there is a big difference between the LDS Church (colloquially known as Mormons and centered in Salt Lake City)and the FLDS Church.

But, to drop some rain on your polygamous parade, let me give you the skinny on mormon fundamentalism both within and without the FLDS (that’s the floral patterned dress ladies denomination) Church.

1. Surprisingly, there are women who consent to living in polygamous marriages that appear normal (as in, they drive normal cars, wear makeup, cut their hair, don’t dress like pioneers, etc). These ladies are not members of the LDS Church (or “mainstream Mormon Church”) and if they were, their relationship with the Church would end per LDS Church policy. Many of these women live in Davis, Cache, Salt Lake, and Utah counties (all along the Wasatch front in the most populous areas of Utah). However, these “normal-looking” polygamist women are quite few (less than 2,000 or so).

2. There are more “conservative” Mormon fundies throughout Utah who are smaller in number and whose tenets and practices are too diverse to really enumerate. They do, however, allow choice in marriage (of course polygamists do not legally marry more than one woman, so as to avoid running afoul of State bigamy laws), dating, interaction, and there is no threat of violence if you decide to leave. You can just pick up your stuff and head out.

3. Sadly, the people raised in the FLDS church have a difficult lot. The girls are put in the “joy book” after reaching puberty and are assigned to older men on a whim. They cannot leave without being beaten, emotionally battered, and condemned to hell. They are often sexually abused to consumate the marriage, and they often face physical abuse for being non-compliant during marriage. The young men and women cannot speak to each other (this is because the young folks found a loophole to the “marry-an-older-man” rule back in the 70s. They would have premarital sex, which required marriage in order to be absolved. Looking to curb this phenomenon, the FLDS leaders put the ichsnay on the adolescent dating-ay). The boys are kicked out of their homes and forbidden to communicate with their families for the most benign of offenses (such sins as wearing long hair, watching The Simpsons, and jamming to the Beastie Boys). This forced exit may sound emancipating to some youngsters, but when you have an 8th grade education, no skills, and are convinced you are going to hell for being excommunicated and removed from your home, it often leads to drug abuse, alchohol abuse and male prostitution (oh, did I mention that child molestation is rampant among the FLDS??) Women are treated as chattel, and when a polygamist man runs into trouble with the leadership, his wives and children are reassigned to another man, and they are forbidden from communicating with their former husband-father FOREVER.

Finally, the LDS Church (of whom about 5% of the 3L class belongs) no longer practices polygamy. We haven’t since 1904 (a lot of people say 1890, but it took folks about 15 years to warm up to the idea of strict monogamy), and any members who become polygamists are removed from association with the LDS (or Mormon) Church.

I realize that with the hullabaloo in El Dorado and popularity of Big Love (which I’ve never seen, but some have found it fun to ask me for my insight on whether it is realistic or not), and the sheer freakiness of the practice of polygamy (no pun intended), it makes for great fodder on blogs.

Just be aware, however, that there is a growing LDS population here at the College of Law, and when people use (or misuse) the word “Mormon,” it can create some uncomfortable backlash for we monogamous Mormons.

Perhaps more importantly, though, there are literally thousands of teenaged girls and boys who are emotionally, physically, and sexually exploited by some horrendous men (including the guy who graces the front page of your blog). I’m sure you would find it distasteful to poke fun of the victims of genocide in Sudan (even if done in ignorance), and you should probably exercise some restraint when using levity when such levity could be interpreted to be at the expense of thousand of exploited women and children.

Other than that, though, I thought it was great.