At long last, a Blackmore has been convicted of a crime.
To refresh your memory, the Blackmores are, quite literally, the “fathers” of the community of Bountiful, an idyllic patch of farmland in B.C.’s Kootenay region, close to the U.S. border. Winston Blackmore alone is father to 147 children, by 27 wives.
Most of the 130 or so students who attend the school in Bountiful are Winston’s children or grandchildren. The B.C. government turns a blind eye to his polygamy, providing $637,000 a year in school funding.
On February 3, Justice Paul Pearlman found Winston’s older brother, Brandon Blackmore, guilty. But not of polygamy. Rather, of child trafficking. In what seems to be have been a common practice, various Blackmores took underage children from their community across the border into the U.S. to become child brides for Warren Jeffs, head of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Jeffs, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for child sexual assault, instructed Brandon Blackmore and his wife at the time, Gail Blackmore, to bring their 13-year-old daughter to him.
They were “married” on July 3, 2004. Six days later, 49-year-old Jeffs recorded for posterity his consummation of the marriage.
Yes – sex with a 13-year-old.
Traditional taboos
The Blackmores have twice been prosecuted for polygamy. Another trial comes up in April.
They have never been shy about their activities. Rather, they insist that polygamy is commanded by God. Therefore, they claim, it is protected by the Freedom of Religion clause in the Canadian Constitution’s Charter of Rights.
In 2011, the B.C. Supreme Court squashed that claim.
So what’s the fuss about polygamy? Marriage is no longer about a lifelong formal union between one woman and one man. Gay marriages, lesbian marriages, common-law marriages, divorces, and what Alvin Toffler called “serial monogamy”… Isn’t polygamy the next traditional taboo to fall?
First, let’s recognize that modern notions of marriage are definitely not traditional. Until recently, the ruling classes were expected to have multiple liaisons, whether or not they were officially recognized. (No one cared what peasants did.)
The fur traders who opened up Canada routinely took native “wives” even though they had spouses and children back home.
For 1400 years, Islamic law allowed men to have up to four wives. Mohammed himself had eleven. Most of the biblical patriarchs had more than one wife; Solomon reputedly had 300 wives and 700 concubines.
Monogamy is a relatively modern obsession.
Outdated standards
Personally, I see no reason why polygamy should be considered criminal -- if it works for everyone’s benefit. Except that it rarely does.
The real issue is not the number of partners, but power.
I know I would not be comfortable in a polygamous union. Or, for that matter, in a polyandrous union -- one woman married to several men. I don’t think I could treat all the participants fairly and equally. Or be treated that way by the others.
And that’s the crux of the matter. As Justice Pearlman noted, in the Blackmores’ version of polygamy, the husband “had the power to demand obedience from her in all matters; to determine whether she received any further education…; to control her movements, travel, and social life; and to control the time and frequency of sexual intercourse.”
The words “power” and “control” appeared over and over in Pearlman’s judgement.
Historically, kings and nobles had power. If they quarrelled with another king or noble, they threw their peasants into wars. The peasants were little more than pawns, the personal property of landowners. As Tennyson noted in the Charge of the Light Brigade, “theirs not to reason why; theirs but to do and die.”
Modern corporations, especially mining companies in Central and South America, in India and Africa, continue to act as though local peasants don’t matter. Villages get flooded, bulldozed, or poisoned by toxic runoff. Indigenous peoples are, at best, collateral damage.
Modern society no longer accepts those practices. But the Blackmores still do.
Polygamy, as practiced in Bountiful, is a throwback to times when God – their version of God, I hasten to add; not mine – granted power and control exclusively to men. Times when women had no rights. They were the property of men, to be used, and bartered. Children had even fewer rights. The Bible often uses the same word for “child” and for “slave” – disposable property.
No wonder Brandon Blackmore saw nothing wrong in delivering his own daughter to Warren Jeffs.
*******************************************************
Copyright © 2017 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups encouraged; links from other blogs welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To send comments, to subscribe, or to unsubscribe, write jimt@quixotic.ca
********************************************************
YOUR TURN
The letters about last week’s column, connecting the Quebec mosque murders to Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric, feel roughly into two groups: those who focused on Trump, and those who focused on the Women’s March in protest.
So this from Sandy Warren: “I agree completely that we must first watch our own actions and have courage to support all who are marginalized in every way we can.
“However, I take issue with your dismissal of the recent marches and protests. For the first time since the early 1970s, I think that these mass demonstrations are vitally important. Their purpose is not to undo the results of the election, but to stand together in large numbers to say that we collectively value justice and inclusion, that proclaiming falsehoods repeatedly does not make them so.
“Watching pictures of people from all over the world standing up in huge numbers for these essential values gave me more hope than I have felt in many months. Not only do these marches strengthen resolve of those working for the right, but members of congress who will be facing re-election notice these very large numbers standing against Trump's hate-filled rhetoric and unjust policies. Although Trump will almost certainly continue on his own myopic, irrational path, he notices these large public displays against him. They are an irritant to him and that in itself is an extremely satisfying reason to march.”
And similar views from Judyth Mermelstein: “While I agree that mass marches have their limitations, I must disagree with your dismissal of them.
“For one thing, we can see that the big Women's Marches in Washington and elsewhere brought together groups with different primary concerns -- race, religion, LGBTQ, etc. -- in a way that has paved the way for much-needed discussion, as well as signalling to many non-marchers that they are not alone.
“Secondly, as we saw this past week, when enough people show up to protest, it can prompt their representatives to do what is needed. This was certainly the case for resisting the Trump travel ban: people showed up in numbers to support its victims, and at least some Republicans in Congress found the courage to say ‘that's wrong.’
“Thirdly, remember what happens when ‘good people do nothing.’ We're not all equally able to stand up to power individually. Our personal actions matter, of course, but their scope is limited. But when faced with a determined crowd of peaceful protesters, the powerful bullies must either back down (at least for the moment) or resort to violence. Either way, the protest's message spreads and convinces others that together we can resist coercion and cruelty in a way we cannot individually.
“Marching isn't sufficient -- certainly not if it's a one-off -- but I do believe it's necessary, especially in a society where most have lost their connections to the broader community.
“Sadly, I'm not able to do it any longer. On my last attempt (2012), by the end I was a full block behind the protest, to the amusement of the police watching my struggle to catch up. But I can still write letters, phone, and use the Internet, which I hope is a useful addition to the efforts of those who do march.”
Pat Jones agreed: “The marches may not directly affect Trump's behaviour or values, but they have their place in the toolbox. The important thing, as you said, is to use the other tools we have; marching with our purchasing power; marching with our volunteer time; marching with being visible in standing up for social justice; marching by focusing on the substance of the behaviour, not superficial physical characteristics; marching by voting; marching by being actively involved in making the world a better place for all. It's easy to tear down, to make fun of [something]. It's harder work to build up and to look beneath the surface of ourselves and others.”
Ted Wilson had a quibble: “Doing a ‘Feel Good’ thing does nothing to improve the situation. One day I met a bunch of protesters after one of their demonstrations and asked what they thought they had accomplished by their demonstration. After a bit of discussion, they agreed ‘Probably nothing other than make themselves feel good.’ It was a form of venting, not likely to change anything regarding to the issue they were protesting about.
“Bev Edwards-Sawatzky was effective not only in what she did but her choice of the demonstration she chose to participate in. The size, location and timing of the Women’s March was probably one of the reasons the Trump people needed ‘Alternate Facts’.”
But not everyone agreed about the value of the Women’s March. P. Mardynalk wrote, “I agree with you about Trump. I don't like him and what he is doing and. But unlike you, I see both sides of the coin. There is a very ugly side to feminism that is being ignored, but is as great a danger to society as Trump.”
The letter then gave examples of inflammatory, and often offensive, statements. Some came from speakers at the Women’s March, some from other occasions.
Rob Brown called the column, “An excellent piece. Clear and forceful. Detailed and principled.
“[If a politician] tells a lie, it’s a lie, no matter what the party says. The size (usually huuuuuuge) doesn’t matter. The bigger, the better; the more lies, the better. Twist stuff; invent stuff — whatever.
“While some people accept this Trumpian reality, many more do not. Half a million marching women are not. Unionized workers, academics, and many other employees are not. Americans, Canadians, Europeans, Africans, and Asians are not accepting the ‘terminological inexactitudes.’ Nobody should believe the lies; everyone who can should call them out, if they can.
“The truth is that we have put up with far too much ‘misrepresentation’ by politicians for far too long. We’ve become accustomed to it; we’ve accepted it as part of life. Thus, we have paved the road for the new, so-called President of the USA.
“You’ve given us good thoughts for response. I hope we have the courage to do some of them. The least we can do it talk to one another about them; ideas arise from such conversations. Writing letters and making phone calls do not take a lot of time or energy, yet they have an impact, despite what Trump’s handlers and guides (the likes of Steve Bannon) tell us.”
Sam Strauss wrote, “The connection was too obvious. Trump's ban condoned and encouraged this behavior, and yet I didn't a word of this in the media following the attack.”
Ginny Adams: "’It's foolish to reason with unreasonable men’ is a powerful statement. It is indeed foolish, for we cannot bring reason to the table in today's White House. What we can do is stand with those who are suffering because of this unreasonable man. We can make a personal stand whenever and wherever needed. And we can indeed pray for the wisdom to know how and when to do this.”
Laurna Tallman offered a psychologist’s insight: “People gravitate to people who are like them. The marginalized are not just forced together by a cruel society, they seek out one another. They look to others to rationalize their own ‘differentness,’ especially those mentally similar people who are also wealthy or famous for some other reason. Money and fame are viewed as forms of social acceptance and as permission to feel comfortable in behaving the same way.
“Trump has blood on his hands in dozens of different ways. He is swiftly and methodically dismantling the structure of U.S. government and destabilizing the world. I will be surprised if the legal cases against him can move swiftly enough to deflect a military coup.
“What can we do? We can speak this truth about Trump and his henchmen and henchwomen at every opportunity. They are pathologically destructive and utterly self-centred people with a truly evil agenda.”
Robert Caughell: “In the U.S., you are more likely to be killed by a white supremacist than you are by a Muslim -- not that those facts matter to Donald Trump et al. He is redirecting U.S. security forces to only look at Muslims as potential terrorists, not white supremacists.”
Gordon Plews did not like the column at all: “Your comment that President Trump should be charged with accessory to murder is completely over the top and childish! You also contradict yourself later in the article by stating ‘We need to ensure that our words and actions never foster the prejudices we deplore.’ Start with yourself. According to your silly logic, every mosque leader should be charged with the same thing for every Muslim who screams ‘Allah Akbar’ as he butchers an innocent bystander… You come off as a smug Canadian and pompous ass to boot.”
Tom Watson: “I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers it insane to cut off entry of particular people into a country in order to prevent ‘many very bad and dangerous people from pouring in,’ while not condemning the acts of violence, such as what occurred at the Quebec City mosque, perpetrated by those who are fueled by divisive, fear-filled, vile rhetoric.”
Half a dozen letters simply offered agreement and support. A few posted the column to their own blogs.
********************************************
TECHNICAL STUFF
This column comes to you using the electronic facilities of Woodlakebooks.com.
If you want to comment on something, write me at jimt@quixotic.ca. Or just hit the “Reply” button.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the address above. Or subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@lists.quixotic.ca.
My webpage is up and running again – thanks to Wayne Irwin and ChurchWeb Canada. You can now access current columns and five years of archives at http://quixotic.ca
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly at the address above, or send a blank e-mail to softedges-subscribe@lists.quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
Ralph Milton ’s latest project is called “Sing Hallelujah” -- the world’s first video hymnal. It consists of 100 popular hymns, both new and old, on five DVDs that can be played using a standard DVD player and TV screen, for use in congregations who lack skilled musicians to play piano or organ. More details at www.singhallelujah.ca
Ralph’s HymnSight webpage is still up, http://www.hymnsight.ca, with a vast gallery of photos you can use to enhance the appearance of the visual images you project for liturgical use (prayers, responses, hymn verses, etc.)
Wayne Irwin's “Churchweb Canada,” an inexpensive service for any congregation wanting to develop a web presence, with free consultation. <http://www.churchwebcanada.ca>
I recommend Isabel Gibson’s thoughtful and well-written blog, www.traditionaliconoclast.com
Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town -- not particularly religious, but fun; alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.
Tom Watson writes a weekly blog called “The View from Grandpa Tom’s Balcony” -- ruminations on various subjects, and feedback from Tom’s readers. Write him at tomwatso@gmail.com or twatson@sentex.net