Fornits
Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform => The Troubled Teen Industry => Topic started by: Anonymous on October 04, 2003, 01:45:00 PM
-
General Conference today 10/4 and tomorrow 10/5.
10:00 and 2:00 MST. On TV and radio.
Everyone might learn something new! :wave:
-
On 2003-10-04 10:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
"General Conference today 10/4 and tomorrow 10/5.
10:00 and 2:00 MST. On TV and radio.
Everyone might learn something new! :wave: "
No thanks, after reading about the plight of THE CHILD BRIDES, I have no interest in learning anything about a religion with a history of violence against women and children.
-
The Men don't get off Scott Free - do a little reading on Blood Atonement.
-
Before Utah could become a state in 1895 or 96, the church gave up their position on plural marriage. From that time on ANYONE practicing polygamy was excommunicated~ which means that they DO NOT belong to the Mormon church.
The people of Hilldale and Colorado City where plural marriages runs rampant are committing unconscionable acts against innocent young girls. They are NOT law abiding citizens of either state (Utah and Arizona) and again I reiterate, they are NOT MORMONS :exclaim: :exclaim: :exclaim:
-
They handle the polygamy thing a different way now. Rich Mormons marry and divorce several women in succession and continue to cohabit with all of them because the church does not recognize civil divorce. A rich Mormon's obituary will read "The deceased is survived by his wife Jennifer and his ex-wife Sarah and his ex-wife Joan and blah blah blah." (Every wife gets her own house so this is very much a RICH Mormon passtime.) Theoretically the first wife is supposed to be the special one, so once the harem is fully stocked, Hubby remarries her for keeps.
Of course the downside of this is multiple mothers-in-law. I guess they figure this way they're sure to go to heaven, beacuse they've done their time in Hell.
When you understand the culture of hypocrisy that its founders grew up in, you begin to understand WWASP.
-
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no100.htm#Polygamy (http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no100.htm#Polygamy)
While the Mormon Church leaders no longer allow their members to practice polygamy, they will not remove Joseph Smith?s revelation concerning plural marriage from the Doctrine and Covenants. Although this book is canonized as one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church, it is not usually given to outsiders. Many non-Mormons who live outside of Utah have told us that they could not obtain this book from the Mormon missionaries. The church is apparently embarrassed by the polygamy revelation which appears in that book.
The revelation, dated July 12, 1843, contained the following:
"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord Justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines?
"Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.
"Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions?
"For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory?.
"And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith [Joseph Smith?s wife] receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God?.
"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood ? if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another? he is justified; he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
"And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified." (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, verses 1-3, 52, 61-62)
Smith secretly entered into plural marriage taking many wives for himself. In addition, he encouraged the brethren to do the same. In 1887, Assistant Church Historian Andrew Jenson made a list of 27 women who were sealed to Joseph Smith. (Historical Record, Vol. 6, page 233) More recent research, however, demonstrated that the number 27 was too small. Mormon writer John J. Stewart believed that Smith married "three to four dozen or more" (Brigham Young and His Wives, 1961, pages 30-31)
Joseph Smith?s revelation regarding polygamy caused serious difficulties for faithful Mormons who followed him. After Smith?s death Brigham Young, the second prophet of the church, continued to stress the importance of plural marriage. On June 3, 1866, Brigham Young declared:
"We are told that if we would give up polygamy?which we know to be a doctrine revealed from heaven, and it is of God and the world for it?but suppose this Church should give up this holy order of marriage, then would the devil, and all who are in league with him against the cause of God, rejoice that they had prevailed upon the Saints to refuse to obey one of the revelations and commandments of God to them ? Will the Latter-day Saints do this? No; they will not to please anybody." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 239)
On August 19th, 1866, Brigham Young strongly admonished his people to continue the practice of plural marriage:
"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy... I heard the revelation on polygamy, and I believed it with all my heart ? ?Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?? If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)
On another occasion President Brigham Young warned: "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned?" (Deseret News, November 14, 1855)
President Young, like Joseph Smith, was very emphatic about the need for his people to practice polygamy. In 1873, he gave this stern warning:
"Now, where a man in this church says, ?I don?t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,? he will perhaps be saved in the Celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, ?Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,? and he will not enjoy it but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single forever and ever." (Deseret News, Sept. 17, 1873)
The reader will note that the quotations above were taken from the church?s own publications, Deseret News and Journal of Discourses.
Recently a revelation given by Joseph Smith, which has been suppressed for over 140 years, has come to light. Although Mormon leaders have never published this revelation, they have referred to it and admitted that it was given to Joseph Smith in 1831. They maintain that it supports the doctrine of polygamy and that it is a forerunner to the revelation on polygamy?given July 12, 1843?which still appears in the Doctrine and Covenants as Section 132. . . . Mr. Marquardt learned what appears to be the real reason why the revelation has been suppressed. This is that the revelation commanded the Mormons to marry the Indians to make them a "white" and "delightsome" people.
Political Kingdom of God
The May 1967 issue, no. 14, of the Messenger was titled "The Mormon Kingdom." In it we discussed Smith's efforts to establish the political kingdom of God on earth, even having himself ordained King, and the secret Council of Fifty. We quoted Apostle John Taylor's statement:
"We do believe it, and we honestly acknowledge that this is that kingdom which the Lord has commenced to establish upon the earth, and that it will not only govern all people in a religious capacity, but also in a political capacity." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 170)
This topic was later covered in D. Michael Quinn's two volumes, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.
-
"Rich Mormons marry and divorce several women in succession and continue to cohabit with all of them because the church does not recognize civil divorce"
This seems like pure fiction. The only divorced mormons that I've ever met are usually poor, male or female. OK, except for Marie Osmond. How rich are we talking? They would have to be "low profile" non-public figure Mormons. How many divorces has J.W. Marriott had? Is Donny Osmond rich enough? I guess the political Mormons can't. That's probably the best reason to stay away from the Mormons: Too many dang republicans- Like Orin Hatch! All of the right wing fanantics are hell bent on destroying our precious freedoms (and our precious bodily fluids!)
-
On 2003-10-04 14:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Before Utah could become a state in 1895 or 96, the church gave up their position on plural marriage. From that time on ANYONE practicing polygamy was excommunicated~ which means that they DO NOT belong to the Mormon church.
The people of Hilldale and Colorado City where plural marriages runs rampant are committing unconscionable acts against innocent young girls. They are NOT law abiding citizens of either state (Utah and Arizona) and again I reiterate, they are NOT MORMONS :exclaim: :exclaim: :exclaim: "
What's the story on the couple who kidnapped Elisabeth Smart? Was she really brainwashed by her captors? Also, were the kidnappers members of the Mormon church or members of one of these bizarre offshoots?
-
This seems like pure fiction. The only divorced mormons that I've ever met are usually poor, male or female. OK, except for Marie Osmond. How rich are we talking? They would have to be "low profile" non-public figure Mormons. How many divorces has J.W. Marriott had? Is Donny Osmond rich enough? I guess the political Mormons can't. That's probably the best reason to stay away from the Mormons: Too many dang republicans- Like Orin Hatch! All of the right wing fanantics are hell bent on destroying our precious freedoms (and our precious bodily fluids!)
FICTION?????
Narvin Lichfield, owner of Dundee Ranch and Carolina Springs Academy divorced his wife in Utah to marry a prostitute from Costa Rica!!!!
-
IMHO althought I am not Mormon, I dont think we should bring religion into this. Not saying that it isnt a factor, but mixing the religion can be sticky. Hey, religion and politics is very sticky.
-
I agree with the last post. Just because someone is a certain religion does not mean that they are a good example of it. People make mistakes. Even screw up royally sometimes. That does not mean that everyone that is the same religion as them beleives what they are doing is right. Sometimes those people are even mentally ill and they say they are doing the insane things they are doing because of their religion. Let's face it there are bad eggs in every religion period. We have to not be so ignorant as to look at those people who are clearly sick and say that is what that religion is all about!!!!
-
Ditto.
-
Seems to me if someone who is a member of the Mormon church, publicly claims they have a "calling" to work with troubled teens, then the question of how their religious beliefs and values impact the care and treatment of the youth they serve is a valid one.
:smile:
-
Ditto.
This discussion sounds familiar, and the same conclusion I arrived at.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... forum=9&36 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=2825&forum=9&36)
-
Yes, I agree that any person, no matter what religion they are, in a position of authority over any child or adolescent or adult for that matter is totally and completely responsible to make sure they act with the utmost intregrity showing care and having only the best interest of the client and family in mind. It seems as though their personal religious beliefs should not be brought into it by others or themselves. Saying you have a calling to work with troubled teens might mean they feel that is something they are destined to do with their life. It is surely not a "calling" given to them by any church. I completely agree with the two posts above the last one. We need not be ignorant!!!!! Let's hold individuals accountable, not religions :exclaim:
-
Here is the article in the LA Times that calls attention to how MORMONISM can and does impact the care and treatment of youth in residential treatment programs owned and operated by someone who attributes his success to his MORMON FAITH.
Key to His Schools' Success? It's God, Founder Says
Robert Lichfield founded one small facility and built it into a business empire. In an interview, he makes frequent reference to his Mormon faith.
Related Stories
Doubting Their 'Tough Love'
July 13, 2003
By John-Thor Dahlburg, Times Staff Writer
ST. GEORGE, Utah -- Robert Browning Lichfield opened his first "tough-love" academy at a time when he was so financially strapped that he, his wife and four children lived crowded together in a one-room apartment.
In the ensuing 16 years, Lichfield had three more children, added 10 schools to his investment portfolio and founded a business empire whose holdings include everything from restaurants to radio stations.
At 49, Lichfield cuts an unmistakable swath through this fast-growing southwestern Utah city. In achieving material success, he has also become something of a civic and political figure ? and a major contributor to the state's Republican Party.
When asked about his success, and about the criticism surrounding the school network that he created, he makes reference to his fervent Mormon faith.
God is the key to his accomplishments, he says, and Satan is stirring up his foes.
"We're here getting kids off drugs and other evils," Lichfield said during a rare interview at the headquarters of the World Wide Assn. of Specialty Programs and Schools. "We're here connecting kids with their families. We're here getting kids in touch with their higher source.
"Do I believe, being a God-believing person, that the adversary to all good is going to sit back and let that happen without a major unleashing of dark forces? No, I don't."
Lichfield is a bearded man, with a burly physique and shy, congenial manner recalling John Candy, the late actor and comic. He wore an open-necked shirt and toyed with a business card during an interview with the Los Angeles Times ? a meeting he agreed to only after months of negotiation.
He requested his photograph not be published in The Times because "some kids are a little deranged.... You never know what they might do."
Lichfield says his role in the for-profit schools is that of an investor and advisor, but his adversaries say he has a key role in managing them. Whatever the case, he usually leaves Ken Kay, the association's white-haired president, to answer questions about the schools' policies.
Lichfield's role in politics is easier to pin down. According to Federal Elections Commission records, Lichfield and his wife gave the Republican Party $175,000 in a recent 12-month period, and he was named Republican of the Year this year by the Washington County GOP.
"As a person, he is great," said county GOP Chairman Naghi Zeenati. "He is community-minded and always available to help."
Lichfield got his first job with problem teens in 1977 when he was a "dorm parent" at a private boys' school on a wooded lot north of Provo. At the fenced-in compound known as Provo Canyon School for Boys, students were subjected to tough treatment, including long periods of solitary confinement and forced lie-detector tests.
It was "baptism by fire," said Lichfield, who has no formal qualifications in education or child psychology and didn't graduate from college. On the job, he said, "you learn real fast, just as a [physician's assistant] learns doctoring skills by working with doctors."
However, not all of his charges from those days recall the fledgling educator with fondness. David Doran, 34, of Tarzana spent time in his youth at Provo Canyon and said he remembers Lichfield as a humorless, dictatorial figure who seemed to delight in taunting students.
About the same time, Lichfield founded the Cross Creek school, his first. In 1987, Lichfield signed a contract to run Brightway Adolescent Hospital in St. George, which health officials said quickly became a pipeline for enrolling students in tough-love schools.
State inspectors investigated the private psychiatric institution after receiving complaints of children being admitted without consent from both parents and a failure to report a suspected case of child abuse, Utah Department of Health spokeswoman Debra Wynkoop said. The hospital shut down in 1998 after being informed by state health officials that they were going to order its closure, Wynkoop said.
By the time WWASPS was created in 1998, Lichfield said he had let other people assume ownership and management of the schools. Ken Kay, president of WWASPS, declined a request from The Times to provide a list of the owners. But some affiliates are family members.
Lichfield's younger brother Narvin owns Carolina Springs Academy near Abbeville, S.C., and the Academy at Dundee Ranch in Costa Rica. Kay's son, Jay, runs the WWASPS school in Jamaica, called Tranquility Bay.
What Lichfield does own, he said, are many of the buildings and grounds that house the WWASPS schools. Title formally belongs to a legal entity with a name intentionally so long newspapers won't print it, he joked. That entity, the Robert Browning Lichfield Limited Family Partnership, has Lichfield and his wife, Patricia, as sole partners, according to documents filed with the Utah secretary of state's office in 1995. Lichfield said he co-owns other properties with business associates.
As for his role in WWASPS, on paper Lichfield is simply a trustee. Some adversaries contend that the limited designation is the way he protects himself from legal liability.
A thicket of interrelated, for-profit companies has grown up around the nonprofit WWASPS. They include Teen Help, the association's marketing arm; Teen Escort Service, which convoys children to and from member schools; and R&B Billing, which sends the monthly bills to parents and processes their payments.
Thomas Burton, an attorney in Pleasanton, Calif., who has sued WWASPS, its member schools and associated businesses at least seven times ? though he has yet to win a case ? contends that all of these entities function as a huge, single commercial venture with Lichfield at the heart.
"The corporations keep shifting and being reconstituted with different people in different places," Burton said. "It seems they want to keep this a moving target."
In March, the Northern California lawyer filed suit in federal court in Salt Lake City on behalf of a former student at Tranquility Bay, claiming the WWASPS school in Jamaica was a "steaming squalid jungle camp, infested with flies, mosquitoes, scorpions and vermin."
After listening patiently during his interview with The Times to a recounting of these kinds of parent and student complaints, Lichfield spoke again of religious faith and his conviction that the methods he pioneered have aided many.
"God can't help everybody. I don't know how we're going to," he said. "But it [WWASPS] does provide an opportunity for thousands of kids to improve their lives. Those who choose not to, choose not to."
-
Well, I think it is a mistake to specifically talk about your religion when you are running places of this magnitude. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with talking about God as long as everyone that puts thier kid in there knows about it. Seriously though, are you so ignorant to think that this man represents the Mormon church? Come on. So if Arnold Schwartzanagger comes out and says he is Mormon that will immediatly mean all Mormons grope women? Give me a break. HOLD THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABLE :exclaim:
-
DITTO......really, if you are running places like these keep your religion at home. No program is ever perfect and sometimes when your not there bad stuff can happen. Then guess what? You get a bunch of ignorant people that want to blame everything on your religion. When really it's just your fault. It is a big responsibility making sure nothing bad happens to these kids and if the only way to do it is to only have one program and be there 24 7 then that's what you should be doing.
-
"We're here getting kids off drugs and other evils," Lichfield said during a rare interview at the headquarters of the World Wide Assn. of Specialty Programs and Schools. "We're here connecting kids with their families. We're here getting kids in touch with their higher source.
------------------------------------------------
There you go, right from the horse's mouth, too.
The salvation of kids via the BOOK OF MORMON and of course, several thousands of dollars in
indoctrination fees to ensure they connect with THE PROGRAM (oops, I mean their "families").
:wink:
-
What??? I didn't see anything about the Book of Mormon in there.
-
I read the whole thing about Lichfield. You guys are really stretching this religious thing. You don't even have to be Mormon to be annoyed. Read over your stuff, your starting to sound pretty stupid. So the guys a jerk that happens to also be Mormon. Snore...Snore...So what are you going to do about him???
-
On 2003-10-06 23:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
""We're here getting kids off drugs and other evils," Lichfield said during a rare interview at the headquarters of the World Wide Assn. of Specialty Programs and Schools. "We're here connecting kids with their families. We're here getting kids in touch with their higher source.
------------------------------------------------
There you go, right from the horse's mouth, too.
The salvation of kids via the BOOK OF MORMON and of course, several thousands of dollars in
indoctrination fees to ensure they connect with THE PROGRAM (oops, I mean their "families").
:wink:
"
BOOK OF MORMON meaning if kids are being saved from drugs and other such "evils", it is because of divine intervention and/or the fervent Mormonistic faith of the founder of WWASPS.
-
Whatever!! That sounds like ummmm.... let's see, Your interperation :exclaim:
-
On 2003-10-06 23:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I read the whole thing about Lichfield. You guys are really stretching this religious thing. You don't even have to be Mormon to be annoyed. Read over your stuff, your starting to sound pretty stupid. So the guys a jerk that happens to also be Mormon. Snore...Snore...So what are you going to do about him??? "
"What are you going to do about him"? Seems to me that is a question better left for GOD to decide, don't you agree?
-
On 2003-10-06 23:49:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Whatever!! That sounds like ummmm.... let's see, Your interperation :exclaim: "
No, that is LITCHFIELD's interpretation of himself.
:silly:
-
God???? and why do you think that I think we should let God do something about him. If he is doing all this stuff to people don't you think that they should do something about him??
-
On 2003-10-06 23:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I read the whole thing about Lichfield. You guys are really stretching this religious thing. You don't even have to be Mormon to be annoyed. Read over your stuff, your starting to sound pretty stupid. So the guys a jerk that happens to also be Mormon. Snore...Snore...So what are you going to do about him??? "
Amen!! I think we should spank him! :rofl:
-
On 2003-10-06 23:47:00, Anonymous wrote:
"
On 2003-10-06 23:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
""We're here getting kids off drugs and other evils," Lichfield said during a rare interview at the headquarters of the World Wide Assn. of Specialty Programs and Schools. "We're here connecting kids with their families. We're here getting kids in touch with their higher source.
------------------------------------------------
There you go, right from the horse's mouth, too.
The salvation of kids via the BOOK OF MORMON and of course, several thousands of dollars in
indoctrination fees to ensure they connect with THE PROGRAM (oops, I mean their "families").
:silly: Ok silly. Just to let you know your the one who wrote "meaning" ummm.....let's see that means your interperation.
-
I find this statement ridiculous. Plural Marriage was outlawed in the state of Illinois were Joseph Smith and others practiced the principle. Why didn't they listen to the "laws of the land?" Could it be that they believed the Laws of God would always come before the laws of man? Why is it that plural marriages were sanctioned on the "underground" by the First Presidency until 1904, 14 years after the manifesto? Why was it, that President John Taylor did not listen to the laws of the land of the Territory of Deseret that made polygamy illegal? He died running from U.S. Marshalls that were to arrest him for strictly breaking the laws of the land in regards to polygamy. I do not agree whatsoever with men that marry so-called "child brides," but for polygamists that marry people of age, let them do so. After all, "We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may" (Article of Faith #11).
-
In terms of consenting adults, I agree.
Prearranged marriage between teen girls and older male family member is another story, as is say, the polygamist who has 5 wives and 29 children who are on welfare for obvious reasons. Their lifestyle then negatively impacts other tax payers. I can't think of one rational reason that one man needs 5 wives and 29 children.
Green argues that polygamist children are superior to others... so therefore, taxpayers should assist with their financial support???
Here's some interesting commentary on the issue:
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08172003 ... /84432.asp (http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08172003/commenta/84432.asp)
Excerpt:
When government infringes on a fundamental religious practice, there must be a compelling substantial interest. Such an interest must be applicable to everyone. If there is a compelling state interest, the state must use the narrowest means to accomplish the goal with minimal infringement.
In the Green appeal, the state of Utah argues a high percentage of polygamist families, which tend to include many children, rely on government support benefits. Utah claims polygamy should be outlawed because its many kids may burden the welfare system. But Utah does not allow sterile people to practice polygamy, nor are wealthy and conscientious people permitted plural marriages.
Utah does not identify all groups (ethnic or religious) that produce too many children or flood the welfare rolls and restrict those groups. The state allows divorce, which puts many kids on welfare rolls. Utah does not limit the number of offspring a person can produce. A statute doing so, although unconstitutional, would support the state's claimed interest in population and welfare rolls while not singling out a religious group.
Banning polygamy to keep dependent children from the public dole is not a precise means to accomplish the claimed goal. Utah does not similarly protect children from unmarrieds or from monogamists. It is not a substantial state interest if it is of concern only as to polygamists.
*************
Rick Rose has an informative piece on the welfare issue:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polyg ... gamy5.html (http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy5.html)
Children should not be penalized because of the behavior of their parents. But if certain behaviors create a dependency on the public system, then it becomes a public-policy question that must be addressed'' said Roz McGee, executive director of the Salt Lake City-based advocacy group Utah Children.
In 1998 at 24 Beagley lived with her husband and three children on the outskirts of St. George, Utah. She had successfully established a new life. But she grew up on food stamps and welfare. She said, "I know women out there wouldn't be having as many babies if it weren't for the welfare. I remember being told that this was a work of God and it was up to the outside world to make us flourish.'' To get more welfare money her father's second wife lied, she claimed his first wife's children were also hers to collect more, Beagley said.
********************
More on Tom Green, the infamous polygamist:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins14.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/elkins/elkins14.html)
An angry Green called Utah officials "spineless" and said: "I think the leaders in Utah have turned their back on their heritage. We produce damn good children, children I would put up against any children in this society."
Green wed each woman in Utah, then divorced in Nevada before marrying the next. Each "divorced" wife then became entitled to collect welfare. According to state investigators, Green and family were able to net a total of $54,420 in welfare payments and food stamps over a period of four years.
-
So basically, every *tax-paying* man, woman and minor child was supporting Green's polygamist lifestyle.
Book 'em Dano!
:smokin:
-
I've run accross some serious reading on poligamy as it's defined in Semetic religions (i.e. religions of the people of the Bible region... you know, Palestine, Samaria, Babalon.... )
As I understand it, in times of war when a good many men were killed, the religious/political leaders would adjust the rules to allow wealthy men to "adopt" the widows and orphans of their deceased fellow countrymen.
It was never intended or described in any scripture prior to the Morman religion as a means of filling up the planet w/ indigent children. Babylon in all its desolation is a sight not so awful as that of the human mind in ruins.
-- Scrope Davies: Letter to Thomas Raikes, May 25, 1835.
-
Polygamy was practiced throughout the Old Testament-- not just when men died in wars. All of the patriarchs of the Jewish faith (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) had multiple wives.
I think there are some very good arguments for polygamy-- if the man can support multiple wives, which is the only way it was allowed in traditional societies.
To wit, if wife one and two etc. can get along, isn't it better for them to combine households and not deprive one set of children of a father as would occur during a divorce? Also, you have built in baby-sitting which allows for cheaper childcare than you'd have in a divorce situation and allows women into the workforce with greater ease as a result.
It mitigates the two major problems that divorce causes children-- 1) economic decline because running two households is more expensive than running one and 2) lack of contact with Dad.
Between consenting adults, then, it's a way better option in terms of "family values" than divorce. BUt I doubt you'll see any conservatives making this case.
I know some people say it would cause immigration problems, but that could be solved by saying that -- as they do in the UK-- polygamy is fine but you can only bring one wife here from your country of origin.