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@... writes:
> __susan carter" <crtrfam@... 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


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.