Dawn Porter – The Polygamist’s Wife

I love Dawn Porter! In tonight’s episode, she finds herself in the house (and
the bed) of
a Polygamist
. Don’t worry, she didn’t quite go that far with her
investigative journalism, but in tonight’s show, Dawn spends some time with a
polygamist family in a town in America.

In the midst of a scandal about child abuse within a polygamist community,
Dawn finds herself among a group of people who are suddenly suspicious about how
they might be perceived by the outside world. Nevertheless, they take the
decision to allow Dawn into their lives.

Having seen a few of Dawn’s documentaries, I felt this one wasn’t quite as
balanced and impartial as others. For a start, she seemed to go out of her way
to find a woman who’d admit to being jealous of sharing her husband. All the
other wives Dawn spoke to claimed to have no problem sharing their husband, but
Dawn – following her conventional upbringing – had a hunch that there
must be some jealousy: “If that was me I’d be thinking ‘She’s in there
humping my husband.’

Despite this, she spends time with a couple of families, and seems to bond
with them well, despite her misgivings about the polygamous marriages. She seems
to appreciate the sense of attachment within the large families.

However, there’s little doubt that Dawn finds the whole thing distateful, and more than a little bit weird. And far from having an impartial ending, the documentary ends with some footage of the polygamy/child abuse scandal in Texas. 

5 Comments

  1. Anonymous

    I couldnt help feel that it wanted the viewer to be against polygamy, instead of making their mind up for themselves.

    Personally though, looking beyond that – I can;t understand why the man thinks it’s ‘ok’ to have more than one wife… and I don’t understand why the wives put up with it!

     DrBob08

    1. Jdacespace

      Agreed with You that Dawn Porter attitude tries to side us against polygamy. I was disgusted at how ungrateful and unprofessional Dawn Porter was by calling them all nuts the second she left their homes and got in the van. After these criticized families allowed her into their homes and to stay the night and put up with her intimate questions. This polygamy community and the family she interviewed will watch this show only to hear her call them nuts in the end. I couldn’t help but applauding the one wife that quieted Porter with her powerful answers. Those kids are taught right, are never in the news for robbery, murder, tax. Considering how sexually liberated our country has become these days, accepting of lesbians and homos, everyone should shutup about polygamy especially when the polygamist produce clean cut kids that are not deprived of a mother and father, education, love and more. Okay Dawn Porter who narrates in her subtle condensending tone, let’s see the family you produce in your life and if it will be comparable in the slightest with one of theirs. Ł

  2. Carl

    I saw this show last night – obvioulsy a long delayed repeat here in Canada – and while it was reasonably well researched and presented it was rife with Dawn Porter’s personnal opinions and errors in fact.  While everyone is entitled to their opinions and a degree of editorial review is appropriate and was in fact needed in the summary ending, there was simply too much of it. Overal it coloured the show to such an extent that it seemed to be more of a crusade to turn those with positive feelings towards polygamy against it.  Every family structure has issues and problems, polygamy perhaps more than most but Ms. Porter’s biased detracted from what was otherwise one of the better treatises I have seen on television.

    Most annoying however was the continued reference to these people as "Mormons" and living the "Mormon Faith".  These people are NOT members of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.  Latter Day Saints have neither officially nor practically underaken plural marriages for over 120 years.  On the rare occassion a member has sought to do so church authorities have repeatedly sanctioned and ex-communicated them.  This programme is a huge injustice against over 12 million Latter Day Saints worldwide and this sort of severe error in fact needs an official correction and apology from both Ms. Porter and indeed the programme’s entire production/research staff.  Even if the subject families wanted to call themselves "mormons" saying so does not make it so, no more than calling myself a Martian makes me one.  As best I could tell both families (certainly those in Centennial Park) are in fact members of breakaway sects of the FLDS church which in itself is a corrupted break-away sect of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints.  Two schsisms later and these people, good as they may or may not be, ar not "Mormons" in any way whatsoever.

    What could have been a very good show in the end, sadly fell short of it’s potential.

  3. Jdacespace

    Agreed with You that Dawn Porter attitude tries to side us against polygamy. I was disgusted at how ungrateful and unprofessional Dawn Porter was by calling them all nuts the second she left their homes and got in the van. After these criticized families allowed her into their homes and to stay the night and put up with her intimate questions. This polygamy community and the family she interviewed will watch this show only to hear her call them nuts in the end.
    I couldn’t help but applauding the one wife that quieted Porter with her powerful answers. Those kids are taught right, are never in the news for robbery, murder, tax.
    Considering how sexually liberated our country has become these days, accepting of lesbians and homos, everyone should shutup about polygamy especially when the polygamist produce clean cut kids that are not deprived of a mother and father, education, love and more.
    Okay Dawn Porter who narrates in her subtle condensending tone, let’s see the family you produce in your life and if it will be comparable in the slightest with one of theirs.

    J

  4. peachperry

     

    Christian Wedlock.

    QUESTION:

    Can a woman have more than two husbands?

    ANSWER:

    No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands.  A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one living wife.  But a woman has three choices.  Firstly, no wedlock with a husband.  Secondly, wedlock with one husband.  Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands.  That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

    1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.

    Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

    Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).

    Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

    Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

    1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.

    What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

    Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

    A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    (A common prostitute is a woman who commonly offers her body for acts of lewdness for payment.  An act of lewdness can never be an act of carnal copulation, as it is blasphemy to state that the Angel Gabriel and Mary committed a lewd act.  The common law of england states that it is impossible for any woman to be a prostitute under any circumstances, but that a woman may continue on to be a common prostitute.).

    A fornicator/fornicatress and adulterer/adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

    Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband.  Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have.  But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men.  Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires?  No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

    Luke 1:28 King James 1611.

    Luke 1:31 King James 1611.

    Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.

    In the New Testament, the Angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son.  And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

    Luke 2:23 King James 1611.

    Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.

    And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

    Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.

    Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.

    And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

    Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.

    Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.

    Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

    Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.

    “Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation.  In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons.  Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils.  Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a future payment of a kid from his flock, and therefore gave as his pledge, his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her.  Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked.  Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar.

    That was because if Tamar was made with child by the second son, and if such child was a baby son born of Tamar, then under the law of the Hebrews that baby son born of Tamar was the first born baby son of the dead first son, and not any baby son of the second son, despite Tamar having conceived that baby son with the second son.  This meant that if a dead man had no son, but still had a widow and a brother, then the widow and the brother should ignore consanguinity, and if the brother was already in wedlock, bigamy, in order to give the dead man a first born son.

    (The ancient Hebrews were a people of eastern civilization who accordingly rejected the concept of demos, and therefore practiced bigamy by the males.  The ancient Greeks were a people of western civilization who accordingly accepted the concept of demos, and therefore practiced either monandry or diandry by the females.).

    Upon the death of his second son, Judah had ordered his daughter-in-law Tamar not to marry again, because Judah promised Tamar that she would marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock.  But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his promise and forbade his third son to marry Tamar.  When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry.  Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry, although it was against the law to put a woman to death for harlotry.  Tamar came and produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child.  Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his promise and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar would have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her.  

    Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah and the midwife tied a red thread around the son’s hand which first appeared out of the womb.  But then the hand was withdrawn into the womb and the second son, Pharez, without the red thread was born first, and the first son, Zarah, with the red thread was born second.

    Ruth 4:18-22 King James 1611.

    King David of Israel and Judah was descended from Pharez, and the red hand flag of the Ulstans and Scots shows the Red Hand of Zarah.  The red hand is often shown on a white six pointed star, but it is not clear whether this star is a Star of Pharez (Star of David) or just a Star of Ulster.

    Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.

    Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.

    Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.

    The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve.  Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue.  Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

    Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.

    Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

    1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.

    A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

    1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.

    A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

    Titus 1:6 King James 1611.

    An elder can have only one wife.

    1 Timothy 5:4&9   King James 1611.

    Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age who have daughters or sons, as the children must provide for their mother.

    The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.

    Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband.  Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

    To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow.  That example is one wife.  The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband.  If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader in marriage, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader in marriage.  What leader is that?  The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

    Luke 1:15&35&41 King James 1611.

    Mary had carnal copulation with three men.  The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli.  However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli.  Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary.  Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards.  After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

    Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands.  That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

    Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.

    1 Corinthians 9:5 King James 1611.

    The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman.  But do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was never in wedlock with any woman, despite all Jesus’ Twelve Disciples being or having been in wedlock with a woman.

    But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

    1st Choice:

    Virgin woman without wedlock.

    2nd Choice:

    Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.

    Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.

    Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.

    Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

    3rd Choice:

    Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.

    Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

    A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time.  Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

    But what do you expect.  After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”.  So what do all northern europeans called themselves?  Lutherans!  Ask them what church they belong to?  The Lutheran Church!

    A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter.  But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

    Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament.  Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

    Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

    That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

    And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world.  This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

    The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

    Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.

    League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.

    Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock.  The Spartans and the Mohawk.

    Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

    And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

    Not only did spartan women routinely have two husbands at the same time, but Sparta herself always had two kings at the same time, as Sparta had two separate royal families.  This dual monarchy (there are no other words to describe it) came from the Agiad Royal Family and the Eurypontid Royal Family.

    Although some greek city-states had matrilineal descent, Sparta had patrilineal descent like most greek city-states.  Accordingly a Spartan woman practicing monandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her daughters and to her sons from her living sole husband at nine months previously.  A Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her old daughters from her living old husband at nine months perviously, give patrilineal descent at birth to her old sons from her living old husband at nine months previously, and give patrilineal descent at birth to her new daughters from her old husband at nine months previously.  But a Spartan woman practicing diandry would give patrilineal descent at birth to her new sons from her living new husband at nine months previously.

    Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males.  It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

    Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock.  The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

    Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female.  The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

    Mark 10:7 King James 1611.

    Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.

    Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS TRIGAMY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS BIGAMY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MAHOMETRY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTAS.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUTILATAS.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS INFIBULATAS.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATOS.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS EVIRATOS.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MUSICOS

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS PRIESTCRAFTRY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.

    THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MARIOLATRY

    CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

    1st.  If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

    2nd.  If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

    3rd.  If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

    4th.  If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

    5th.  If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

    6th.  If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

    7th.  If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

    8th.  If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

    9th.  If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a person’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

    10th.  If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

    11th.  If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

    12th.  If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

    13th.  If any marryed man shall maliciously and on purpose claim wedlock with a woman, other than his one wife; he shall be put to death.

    14th.  If any marryed woman shall maliciously and on purpose claim wedlock with a man, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

    15th.  If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

    16th.  If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

    17th.  If any child, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child so offending shall be put to death.

    18th.  If any stubborn and rebellious son, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son so offending shall be put to death.

    19th.  If any man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, such woman not being his one wife; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case he shall not be punished.

    20th.  If any woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, such man not being one of her two husbands or her one husband; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother or Lodgemother authority, in which case she shall not be punished.

     

Log In or Sign Up

css.php
Skip to toolbar