The following is linked from
http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/Polygamy/

===============

http://www.egroups.com/message/mormon_anarchy/741
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:43:41 -0700
From: clangreen@...
Subject: Tom Green's young wives

__susan carter" <crtrfam@... wrote:__
I know that Tom Green is being attacked and one of the reasons used is
because
of marrying such young girls. The law at the time was 14 (now 16) and
one
girl was 13--statutory rape. Now the facts don't sound so good--she was
the
daughter of one of his wives. Can a child of 13 going on 14 make an
adult
decision to marry without undue coercion because of immaturity? Usually
I
would say no they are not old enough, yet in that case I can't judge, I
wasn't
there. The wives now claim they made the decision and are happy. Their
countenances are not down trodden as so many plural wives are. But I
believe
they are a rare family.
- - - - -
Response: Indeed we ARE a rare family for many reasons (none of which we
have an exclusive on, BTW. They are avaialble to all who will). First of
all, I agree that it is RARE to find young women the age my wives were
when they married who are prepared for that responsibility. I have only
met five who were. (See my essay, attached, on the subject). Those who
have met Linda, the wife who was allegedly "raped," have admitted that
she IS rare.

It's a semantic problem. It's apples and oranges. When the world thinks
of a young woman the only thing that comes to mind are the young women
they've had exposure to. They are apples. But they are nothing like the
young women that have married me. They are oranges. When someone mentions
that Tom Green "took a piece of fruit" the only fruit they think of are
apples - the only kind of young woment that they are familiar with. But
the fruit that have married me are oranges. Society judges by their own
experience and standards. But my wives are from a different culture. We
just happen to live in the middle of greater American culture. And so we
are judged the same. If we were a different color from other americans,
wore different clothes, spoke a different language, and came from the
other side of the world, people would understand that there is a cultural
difference. But our biggest crime is that we look too much like
Americans, but don't live that way. That's a threat to other Americans.

No one has yet show, or suggested, where these girls have been harmed by
being happily and successfully married for 10-15 years. And, they are no
longer teenagers. They're in their 20's-30's. And they're still here. And
still happy. How many others, married in their teens (or, for that
matter, in their 20's) can make the same claim? Some say that they did
not have sufficient choice. Some have suggested that they should've
"tried out" several different fellows before making a lifetime selection.
How well does that work for those who pursue that course in society?
These ladies say that they DID have a choice. And they exercised it.

__Susan Carter__
I am aware of very young girls consenting to sex and/or marriage, but
later
very much feeling like they were overpowered mentally by someone older
and
wiser. It seems unwise to me to take the risk. What is the hurry? Why
not
wait until they are older--at least 18? Tom if you are reading this I
would
sincerely like to know.
- - - - -
I find that I agree with pretty much everything that Ms. Carter has to
say in her articulate and thoughtful post. Including this statement. It
IS unwise and risky to marry a young woman - especially in today's
society (thought the idea of teenaged girls having sex troubles but does
not seem to alarm society. Even with a teenaged girl getting pregnant -
almost always out of wedlock - every 28 seconds!). What's the hurry? Due
time of the Lord. I have asked the Lord, especially in the last year,
"Why?" Why did he send me the wives he did WHEN he did and instruct me to
marry them, even though it meant facing the same ostracism by my
fundamentalist associates as my acceptance of original Mormonism did from
my Mormon associates?

The only hint of an answer - an understanding, really - I have recieved
is outlined in the essay attached. Society underestimates young men and
women. They see them today as not being capable of handling adult
responsibility - for the first time in dozens of millenia! And so, as
stated in the essay, our social focus is no longer the establishing and
building and nurturing and preservation of strong, nuclear and
multi-generational families ( a'la the Waltons). Now the focus is
preparation for the workforce. After all, one "must" have a lucrative job
to handle the mortgage, car payments, credit card payments, college
tuition for the children, etc. that seem so indespensable today.

The state (David Leavitt and his investigation staff) has been
investigating whether our 25 children are adequately provided and cared
for. A friend at DCFS (Division of Child and Family Services) warned us
that the state has now declared that if you don't have power
(electricity) you are not providing an acceptable living place for
children. And the amazing thing is: When Brigham and the boys got to Utah
they not only did NOT have electricity, mortgages, running water,
sufficient toilets (they had none, indoors that is) - they didn't even
have a JOB! None of them! If modern Utah were to come face-to-face with
original Utah, seeing such "neglectful" living conditions, they would
take away all those poor, abused, downtrodden and neglected pioneer
children (imagine! making children WALK all the way across the plains -
some barefoot, too!) and "rescue" them. Modern Utah society would be as
shocked and condeming of original Utah society as Modern Mormons are when
they confront those living and practising original Mormonism.

My brother-in-law lives on a remote ranch with three wives and a bunch of
young children. They have lived there nearly 20 years, yet they have no
power (electricity) or phones. And they have managed to survive - quite
comfortably, actually. They have a well stocked larder and root cellar.
When they get snowed in, they throw another log on the fire, pull out the
jigsaw puzzles and spend time being a family together.

One of the things we like about our remote location is that we don't
receive broadcast / commercial television. Our children are regularly
seen walking around with a hardback book under their arm to squeeze in
more reading any spare moment. Of course, when we lived in the city we
didn't turn the TV on either. We Do have TV's. Our home school course is
a video course filmed in an actual (Christian) classroom. But our
children, now entering their teens, have never watched the Mutant Ninja
Turtles, Power Rangers, etc. They have computers, bit they've never
played Duke Nukem. There are many words in society they don't understand.
Sometimes, when we watch an "R" rated movie, the inuendoes and crude
slang goes right over their head. They are innocent. And beautiful. And
intelligent. They love to learn. They love to have fun. The 12-14 year
olds regularly take the 4X4 and trailer and crew out to get firewood.
It's nice to finally see the wood shed get filled without me, or my
wives, having to leave home to do it! (My "continuing criminal
enterprise" as Mr. Leavitt calls it is *finally* beginning to pay off!).

We lived a year or so without an indoor toilet and running water. We're
more modernly established now, but it was a good, character-building
experience. And I can testify from personal and first-hand experience
that young women and young men in their teens CAN handle the
responsiblities of adults. They will rise to the level of responsibility
that is expected of them, provided they have the preparation, guidance
and support of those with more experience. The "Walton" method again,
where grandpa putters around the barn and shop with the younger children
teaching them skills and values - and instilling in them a sense of
family continuity that helps them realize when they're away from home
that their behavior and actions will reflect on others besides
themselves.

Society has forgotten the true potential of their young men and women.
And, as a result, by decoying their focus onto the "neccessity" for all
the things our pioneer forefathers started out without, or never had,
they have lost the things that are truly most important in life. The
values, family relationships and self-improvement that can be gotten in
homes with no mortgages (like ours) cars with no payments (like ours) and
a pioneer life-style (like ours) are much more fulfilling and rewarding
in an eternal sense than a "great job" (there is no such thing, other
than parenting), a great house, a new car, etc. Henry David Thoreau was
on to something that people today only read about, but never truly
experience.

So, Ms. Carter, "What's the hurray?" I ask, "Why wait?" If they're
ready, and God had arranged the marriage, why wait just to please a
corrupt and deluded society? To keep them from harrassing? Perhaps. I'd
probably delay somethings, could I turn the clock back. But even Linda,
who's son is 14 and half her age (and a rising leader in our own newly
chartered scout troop with an I.Q. of 168) says that, even with the
hassles we've had, from ALL quarters, she would do it again - the same
way. I'm not so sure about me. But I will say, as I said from the witness
stand last month, that I'm proud to claim Linda's son, Mel, as my own.
And what I wanted to add to Mr. Leavitt was that, even if I end up going
to prison for it, having a son like Mel (and sons like his brothers) it
would STILL be worth it.

- - - - -

And now, as for the "welfare" thing, I will address that in my next post
- anxiously! But they just called over here to my room/office from the
main house to tell me that the reporter from Hungary - who was due this
afternoon but got lost - has finally arrived. And Datline NBC will be
here in the morning for two days filming the native american polygamist
in it's natural habitat (possibly to air on 12-18). Then off to court
again on Thursday. The producer from Dateline who will be here, Sandy
Gleysteen, is the same one who was here over a year and a half ago. She
has told David Leavitt and many others that she came to Utah last year
with the regular, Tapestry-induced prejudices against plural marriage.
But after spending two days with our family it completely changed her
mind. While she hedged that she wasn't sure that she herself could live
it, she discovered that it really is a viable lifestyle with probably
more to offer women than men.

Regards,

Tom Green & Co.

----------

From: Robert Black
To: clangreen@...

I did some research on the age of Mary when she married. I found the
following. Franz Michel William says (Mary the Mother of Jesus, page
47-48) "The following is the old popular legend of Palestine. Mary lived
in the Temple and there, like a dove, she was fed by the hand of an
angel. When she was twelve years old, the priests came together in
council and said: 'Behold, Mary is now twelve years old (i.e. a young
woman); What shall be done with her?' And they said to the high priest:
'Thou standest at the altar of the Lord; go in to the Holy of Holies and
pray for her, and whatsoever the Lord shall reveal to you, that let us
do.' . . ." it go on to tell how they assembled several widowers and
miraculously God selected Joseph to be espoused to her. J. B. Mayor said
(Hastings Bible Dictionary, 3:288) "She remained in the temple,
ministered to by angels, till she had completed her twelfth year, when
the high priest was directed to summon all the widowers of Israel . . .
." when she was betrothed to Joseph. From these two exalted authorities
(best that I have in my library on the subject) it is safe to assume that
she was impregnated by God when she was 12 or 13.

Robert.

[Note: This is not "proof." But it is not unlikely based on Jewish custom
and tradition. If God the Father was willing take Mary to wife, was he a
pedophile?]


==================
and here is Randall Shortridge's comment in reply:
http://www.egroups.com/message/mormon_anarchy/748

From: Laura S Shortridge <lsshortridge@j...>
Date: Wed Dec 13, 2000 7:32am
Subject: Randall replying Re: Tom Green's young wives




Tom. I felt moved to reply to your thoughtful and heartfelt message.
Comments below. I will try to keep them to a minimum for easier reading.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:43:41 -0700 clangreen@j... writes:
> __susan carter" crtrfam@m... wrote:__
snipped...
>
> It's a semantic problem. It's apples and oranges. When the world
> thinks
> of a young woman the only thing that comes to mind are the young
> women
> they've had exposure to. They are apples. But they are nothing like

Yes, I can see your point fully. But, isn't it a two-edged sword? Can
you also see that you are implying that everyone who thinks polygamy is
the wrong interpretation of the doctrine is "apples". Maybe there is
another point that is not being considered? Maybe it isn't just
"oranges" (your view) vs "apples" (everyone elses view)? Maybe there
are also peaches (other views that have not been considered)?

> First of
> all, I agree that it is RARE to find young women the age my wives
> were
> when they married who are prepared for that responsibility. I have
> only
> met five who were. (See my essay, attached, on the subject). Those
> who
>

That is wonderful. But, I thought that it is only part of the picture,
not all of it. What about your first wife? Will she "testify" on this
document you present as evidence for the godliness of polygamy? So,
maybe this testimony of the current wives is posturing and being a bit
disgenuous. Maybe we ought to be exposed to what the other (former)
wives say?

> stated in the essay, our social focus is no longer the establishing
> and
> building and nurturing and preservation of strong, nuclear and
> multi-generational families ( a'la the Waltons). Now the focus is

I have no problems with your goal, but I am wondering why you are saying
that this cannot be done with monogamist familes? You seem to be
implying that polygamy is the only way. I am wondering what polygamy has
with this goal at all?

This next thing is not a response to your message, but maybe it is
relevant to this conversation. One fellow who is (pro-Brighamite) LDS
recently wrote (with a bit of sarcasm) to my wife that the sons of Jacob
were created by a polygamist marriage (therefore asking why I often speak
in disfavor of the practice?). Well, here is my answer, which I will
return with a question: When one looks at Jacob and his family, one
sees what modern folks would call a "dysfunctional" family. The sons
become so divided (tribal, lost) that most of them plot to murder one of
them, but fortunately his life is spared (instead sold into slavery) by
the intervention of one of the other sons, who happens to be the one who
sleeps with his stepmother (well that is a very short version).

Questions for polygamists (I know that you didn't bring this up Tom):
Why is it that pro-polygamists always use Jacob as their argument in
favor of polygamy? Why do polygamists desire to imitate such a
dysfunctional family?

No, I am not saying that all polygamists are dysfunctional. In fact, I
think it would be a greater error to break up a family that has chosen
this lifestyle. But, personally I think all polygamist marriages are
eventually doomed to failure. Of course, only time will tell.

At any rate, with this message I respectfully take issue with the way
that it (polygamy) is often dressed up in nice clothing. Personally, I
think it is like the retired lady with too much jewelry, tons of makeup,
and silver hair.... you can't hide what it really is. We often make a
big show with the clothing, while it is what is underneath (the
principle) that is wrong.

And what is wrong in principle is never right in practice.

With Respect,
Randall