NY Times op-ed; I am sure it was discussed, where?

[_mms]

I am sure I just missed the discussion of this op-ed here and at MAD. Can someone point me to the threads?

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/2 ... r-fathers/

[_mms]

Anybody know?

[_Mercury]

Interesting article. I hope more sentiments such as this authors are shared instead of the odd mainstream Mormon opinion of feigned shock followed by denouncement of the law.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I don't believe there has been one on this site. Not sure about MAD. *shrugs*

Will read it later and give my thoughts.

[_moksha]

This is the official response:

May 5, 2008
A response from: Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Timothy Egan claims that the way polygamy is practiced today by members of the FLDS sect in Eldorado, Texas is the same as it was practiced by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) in the 19th century. In fact, a closer look at history contradicts his simple reductive characterizations of “Mormon polygamy.”

Nineteenth-century Mormon women were not timid, subservient, and backward, as the image of FLDS women portrayed in recent days in the media has shown. Rather, women in both plural and monogamous marriages were politically active and participated in territorial elections, taught school and were active in publishing and literary activities. In addition, Mormon marriage then was not controlled by the arbitrary authority of one individual, and the consent of individual women was always honored in any marriage proposal. Both men and women were free to refuse offers of marriage they found unacceptable.

Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is sacred and ordained of God. The family is the basic social unit in this life and in the next. The social, emotional, and spiritual health of all family members was then and is today the primary concern of every Latter-day Saint mother and father. Mr. Egan’s cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamous practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong. By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear.

We have posted further commentary on the topic at LDS.org

[_Gazelam]

the comments after the article are great.

[_asbestosman]

In addition, Mormon marriage then was not controlled by the arbitrary authority of one individual, and the consent of individual women was always honored in any marriage proposal. Both men and women were free to refuse offers of marriage they found unacceptable.

So he claims. I've heard claims to the contrary at least when it comes to Joseph Smith and Emma. Who is right? I dunno.

[_beastie]

I seriously doubt the FLDS women would agree that they are timid, backward, and subservient. In fact, I'm positive they would not agree with that evaluation.

[_Trevor]

In addition, Mormon marriage then was not controlled by the arbitrary authority of one individual, and the consent of individual women was always honored in any marriage proposal. Both men and women were free to refuse offers of marriage they found unacceptable.

So he claims. I've heard claims to the contrary at least when it comes to Joseph Smith and Emma. Who is right? I dunno.

That was the part that raised my eyebrows. He might have added the word "ideally" and been a lot more accurate.

[_beastie]

Nineteenth-century Mormon women were not timid, subservient, and backward, as the image of FLDS women portrayed in recent days in the media has shown.

In fact, where are Juliann and her cohorts demanding that FLDS women be allowed to speak for themselves?