Category Archives: Polygamy

The report issued at the end of the synod on synodalitys first session evolved considerably from the day a draft was presented to delegates to its Oct. 28 release.

An initial draft of the synthesis report prompted more than 1,000 amendments after it was shared with participants Oct. 25.

The 42-page final report, published Saturday (only in Italian), differed in many respects from the 40-page draft text, previously reported by The Pillar.

Heres a guide to 10 notable changes.

Share

Before: It is proposed to establish a permanent synod of bishops elected by Episcopal Conferences to support the Petrine ministry (chapter 13, section j).

After: It is proposed to enhance and strengthen the experience of the Council of Cardinals (C-9) as a synodal council at the service of the Petrine ministry (13, j, approved 319-27).

What changed: When Pope Paul VI established the synod of bishops as a permanent institution with the 1965 apostolic letter Apostolica sollicitudo, he said it would enable bishops to offer more effective assistance to the supreme Shepherd. He also decreed that members would include bishops elected by individual national episcopal conferences.

But as it exists in canon law, while the secretariat of the synod of bishops is a permanent institution, the synod itself is a body reconstituted for every new synodal session, with representatives from episcopal conferences and special papal invitees chosen for each new assembly according to the popes wishes.

In the end, participants called instead for an already established body, the Council of Cardinal Advisers, to be re-envisaged as a synodal council at the service of the Petrine ministry, without specifying how.

Before: In different ways, people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality, such as divorced people in a second union, people who identify as LGBTQ+, etc., also ask to be heard and accompanied (16, g).

After: In different ways, people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their marriage status, identity or sexuality also ask to be heard and accompanied (16, h, approved 326-20).

What changed: The acronym LGBTQ+, which also appeared in the synod on synodalitys working document, vanished. Synod organizers have not offered an explanation for the terms disappearance.

Papal synod appointee Cardinal Blase Cupich has suggested that the decision not to use the term LGBTQ was informed by some synod members from the global south, who spoke about having negative experiences in dealing with conditions on foreign aid from western countries that use that terminology.

Another synodal attendee, Fr. James Martin, S.J., claimed that The document, as it turns out, does not reflect the fact that the topic of LGBTQ people came up repeatedly in both many table discussions and the plenary sessions, and provoked widely diverging views.

Before: No reference to priests who have left the ministry.

After: On a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with the context, the possibility should be considered of re-inserting priests who have left the ministry in pastoral services that recognize their formation and experience (11, l, approved by 293-53).

What changed: A new paragraph was added concerning priests who have left the ministry but no specificity was offered about under what circumstances they left. Presumably, the text meant the thousands of priests who asked to be laicized in the wake of Vatican II so they would be free to marry, rather than those who have requested laicization (or had it imposed) following canonical criminal offenses or other scandal.

The new paragraph received more no votes than many others.

Before: It is proposed to establish a committee of theologians to be entrusted with the task of proceeding with the work of terminological clarification (1, p).

After: The assembly proposes to promote theological deepening of the terminological and conceptual understanding of the notion and practice of synodality before the second session of the assembly, drawing on the rich heritage of theological research since the Second Vatican Council and in particular the documents of the International Theological Commission on Synodality in the life and mission of the Church (2018) and The sensus fidei in the life of the Church (2014) (1, p, approved by 339-5).

What changed: The final text changed from calling for the creation of a new committee to endorsing the promotion of work that sheds light on synodality. It recognized that substantial efforts have already been made to do this, including in texts by the International Theological Commission, an advisory body of theologians appointed by the pope.

Subscribe now

Before: A second step refers to the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures. Without questioning continuity with ritual tradition and the need for liturgical formation, reflection on this issue and the attribution of greater responsibility to the episcopal conferences in this area is urged (3, l).

After: A second step refers to the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures. Without calling continuity with tradition and the need for better liturgical formation into question, deeper reflection is needed. Episcopal conferences should be entrusted with a wider responsibility in this regard, according to the motu proprio Magnum Principium (3, l, approved 322-22).

What changed: The phrase ritual tradition was slimmed down to tradition, and a reference was added to Pope Francis 2017 motu proprio, which modified canon law to give bishops conferences greater authority over translations of liturgical texts.

Before: First and foremost, the proposal emerged for the establishment, on the basis of existing norms in canon law, of a permanent assembly of the heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the pope, as an expression of synodality and an instrument to promote communion and the sharing of liturgical, theological, pastoral and spiritual heritage (5, h).

After: First and foremost, the request emerged to establish a permanent Council of the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches to the Holy Father (6, h, approved by 322-22).

What changed: A section on the poor was moved to an earlier place in the text, so the section on the Eastern Catholic Churches came in sixth rather than fifth place. The request for a body bringing together the heads of the autonomous Churches together with the pope remained intact, but the institution was defined as a council rather than a permanent assembly.

Before: We need to recognize that certain issues, such as those relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, ethical problems connected to artificial intelligence, are controversial not only in society, but also in the Church, because they raise new questions. Sometimes the anthropological categories we have developed are not able to grasp the complexity of the elements emerging from experience or knowledge in the sciences and require greater precision and further study. It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church. Church teaching already provides a sense of direction on many of these matters that still waits to be translated into pastoral initiatives. Even where further clarification is required, Jesus actions, assimilated in prayer and conversion of heart, show us the way forward (15, g).

After: Some issues, such as those relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, ethical problems connected to artificial intelligence, are controversial not only in society, but also in the Church, because they raise new questions. Sometimes the anthropological categories that we have developed are not sufficient to capture the complexity of the elements that emerge from experience or scientific knowledge and require refinement and further study. It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church. Many indications are already offered by the magisterium and await to be translated into appropriate pastoral initiatives. Even where further clarification is required, Jesus actions, assimilated in prayer and conversion of heart, show us the way forward (15, g, approved by 307-39).

What changed: Instead of saying that Church teaching already provides a sense of direction on matters that require further study, the approved text refers to indications already offered by the magisterium.

The final text places more stress on the magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, in other places too. According to Jonathan Liedl of the National Catholic Register, the word magisterium was mentioned four times in the draft, but 10 times in the final version.

Before:No mention of polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at the same time.

After: SECAM (Symposium of the Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar) is encouraged to promote a theological and pastoral discernment on question of polygamy and the accompaniment of people in polygamous unions who are coming to faith (16, q, approved by 303-43).

What changed: Polygamy is a challenge confronted especially by the Catholic Church in Africa. The texts editors decided to include a paragraph about the issue, directing a continental body of bishops to promote theological and pastoral discernment on the matter, as well as pastoral care for people who are in polygamous unions but drawn to the Catholic faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines polygamy as contrary to the moral law, but says that the Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

Before:The doctrinal and juridical nature of episcopal conferences needs further study. This implies the need to clarify their status and the possibility of collegial agency, reopening the discussion on the motu proprio Apostolos suos (19, g).

After: The doctrinal and juridical nature of episcopal conferences needs further study, recognising the possibility of collegial action, including questions of doctrine that arise locally, thus reopening reflection on the motu proprio Apostolos suos. Apostolos suos (19, g, approved by 312-34).

What changed: The section has a significant addition: The reference to the possibility of collegial action, including questions of doctrine that arise locally. The question of delegating doctrinal authority which has swirled around Pope Francis since his election in 2013 is extremely controversial. Proponents, who include supporters of Germanys synodal way, argue that it is a necessary step toward decentralization. Critics say it would lead to the disintegration of Church teaching.

Before: More effort is needed to ensure that, wherever possible, women can participate in decision-making processes and assume roles of responsibility in pastoral care and ministry (9, m).

After: It is urgent to ensure that women can participate in decision-making processes and assume roles of responsibility in pastoral care and ministry. (9, m, approved by 319-27).

What changed: The language of this paragraph has been firmed up, stressing that this change is urgent, rather than something that simply requires more effort. The qualifier wherever possible has been removed, strengthening it further.

Editors note: This article was updated Oct. 31, 2023, with quotations from the official English translation of the synthesis report.

Subscribe now

Read the original post:

From draft to final text: 10 ways the synod report changed - The Pillar

Last month, Mitt Romney announced he will retire from the Senate after one term. Romney, who is 76, cited his age. That was undoubtedly a major consideration for a guy with a platoon of grandchildren.

Its also true that Romney is unpopular with Utah voters and had no real chance of reelection after becoming the most prominent elected Republican antagonist of Donald Trump. With Romneys 30-year political career ending with a whimper, there would naturally be a forceful attempt to shape his legacy as something other than a failure.

Fortunately, Romney already made plans for this. The Atlantics McKay Coppins, also a practicing Mormon, was already beavering away on a Romney biography that was sure to be sympathetic. Sure enough, very soon after Romneys retirement announcement, The Atlantic ran a juicy excerpt adapted from the prologue of the forthcoming book. While the excerpt was sympathetic to Romney, in some ways it defied expectations.

The tableau it paints of Romney is something of a caricature. A luxury condo in the Watergate was too painful a commute to the Capitol, and Ann Romney doesnt like spending time in D.C., so hes living alone in a $2.4 million townhouse on Capitol Hill. He passes the time by watching Ted Lasso reruns on his 98-inch television while eating salmon sandwiches slathered in ketchup because he doesnt like salmon. (When it comes to food, the septuagenarian Romney, who has declared his favorite meat is hot dog, seems to have the maturity of a 7-year-old.)

When that doesnt stave off the boredom, he invites over a reporter who will keep him company late into the evenings while he nurse[s] a morbid fascination with his own death, suspecting that it might assert itself one day suddenly and violently, brags about how his compulsive exercise habits are superior to those of his colleagues in the Senate, and breathlessly recites a litany of petty grievances about his fellow Republicans.

It had always seemed hard to reconcile Romneys obsessive political drive with his charmed life and impossibly handsome faade without suspecting something slightly sinister lurking underneath. Now this Atlantic article reads like American Pyscho: The Golden Years. I half expected the excerpt to end with Coppins nervously edging toward the door as Romney casually starts to fondle an axe and lay down plastic sheeting in the living room while cheerfully monologuing about what a tool Josh Hawley is.

Of course, there were other layers to this portrait of Romney. Coppins is a skilled writer, and Id venture hes one of the best at what he does, provided were clear that he works at The Atlantic, a media outlet with enough baggage that it is widely distrusted by anyone on the right.

But Coppins was also given a level of access to Willard Mitt Romney that was rarely granted to a biographer. The results would no doubt be revelatory. The only question is to what extent those revelations would be intentional, and to what extent Romneys character would be revealed by how oblivious he is to how critics and ordinary voters might perceive him.

Well, Romney: A Reckoning has finally arrived on bookstore shelves everywhere. On the surface, its a model political biography: a short recap of his early life, followed by a mostly chronological recap of his career. Its a dream to read. The prose is concise and the story well-structured, and that is not a small compliment directed at Coppins.

On a deeper level, however, Im still not sure to what extent Coppins is aware of the contradictions exposed and how they will be interpreted by anyone not already convinced Romney is a righteous crusader. The book is full of quotes and characterizations that, divorced from the calculating context, reveal Mitt to be haughty, weird, and willing to sell out even as he insists he hasnt.

To have Mitt tell it, hes always been dogged by irrational criticism: Throughout my life theres always been one person who just cant stand me. Heres him trying to explain away why hes off-putting to some people: I was accused of being inauthentic. But in reality, thats just who I am. Im the authentic person who seems inauthentic. Heres him summing up his opposition to estate taxes in his failed 2008 GOP primary bid: It was one of those things you say because you dont know what youre talking about.

None of this is especially damning for politicians, of course. People with ambition are often polarizing, normal well-adjusted people almost never run for office, and every politician finds himself uttering expedient rhetoric. Whats remarkable about Romney: A Reckoning is its exhaustive examination, and ultimate absolution, of Mitts behavior and motives while extending comparatively no grace to a cavalcade of politicians Romney singles out.

And it is an overly generous assumption that Romney deserves to be excused for a great many things. For instance, when Romney ran for president in 2008, he gave a defiant speech addressed to critics of his Mormon faith: Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

Believers of convenience, you say? Heres Coppins describing how Romney arrived at his pro-abortion position as a Senate candidate and later as governor of Massachusetts:

Now he wondered if there was any wiggle room in the Churchs teachings. As he studied the question, the incentive for rationalization was strong: He found quotes from church leaders who said abortion was like unto murder but they didnt say it was murder. And while the Church didnt take an official position on when the spirit enters the body, he discovered that a close reading of certain verses could lead one to conclude that it took place sometime after conception. He also seized on the Churchs twelfth Article of Faith, which declares a belief in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. He began to think abortion was a bit like polygamy, he told me later. Before Utah joined the United States, the Church acknowledged the illegality of polygamy and renounced the practice out of respect for the law. Abortion, he reasoned, had been legalized through Roe v. Wade perhaps he had a similar responsibility to honor that?

Romney would later renounce his pro-abortion stance when he ran for president, but I dont know where to begin with this, except to say its hard to respect this horrifyingly facile reasoning that makes a mockery of life and death, never mind that it shows Romney twisting the beliefs of his church.

(Also, as an historical matter, the polygamy analogy is grossly misguided. In 1858, the Mormon Church engaged in armed conflict with federal troops over polygamy and proceeded to ignore multiple anti-bigamy acts Congress passed until the church renounced the practice as a condition of Utah statehood in 1896. As mentioned in the book, Romneys own father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in 1907 into a Mormon polygamist community in Mexico where the residents had fled to dodge U.S. laws. Subordinating church teachings out of strict respect for the law is not exactly a Mormon distinctive.)

Yet its remarkable how much of a vehicle this book is for Romneys score-settling. Its hard to blame Coppins for going along with this. The fact the book is Romneys anti-Republican emetic was always going to be catnip for the wider press, and the marketing is practically on autopilot: Mitt Romneys Sickest Burns: Book Reveals Harsh Views of Fellow Republicans, reads The New York Times headline.

While its fairly legitimate to bemoan that post-Trump Republican politics are defined by personal insults, as the book demonstrates, Romney isnt just some guy caught in the middle of all this name-calling and trying to fight his way out with his honor intact. In fact, many of the beefs described herein predate or stand outside issues related to Trump.

Throughout the book, Romney is relentlessly contrasted as the one serious and sober Republican in a party defined by self-interested clowns. Even though Romney dominated the 2012 GOP primary, he still bemoans how his inability to consolidate the support of his party especially in the face of such unimpressive opponents was humiliating. Romney was, of course, up against the likes of Rick a dimwit Perry and Newt Gingrich, who is in Romneys telling a smug know-it-all.

Never mind that Perry was a three-term governor of Texas, and the public impression of him as a dimwit largely rests on a debate gaffe that was far less damning than the gaffe that felled the presidential ambitions of Mitt Romneys father, an episode that haunted Romney. Despite the moral failings in his personal life, Gingrich was a former speaker of the House and architect of one of the biggest congressional victories in American history.

By contrast, in 2012 Romney was a one-term governor whod lost two of the three races hed run in, and his major legislative accomplishment taxing people who didnt have health insurance was cited as a template by the very incumbent Democrat president Romney hoped to unseat when he passed Obamacare, the most hated piece of legislation in a generation. Certainly, Romneys opponents arent above criticism, but the idea that Romney was self-evidently superior to his opponents all along is pure arrogance.

Elsewhere in the book, it does not spare any contempt for the evangelical leaders who often play a role in Republican politics. Romney tried to play nice with them and obviously never felt welcomed.

Perhaps heres where I should lay my cards on the table. I was a fifth-generation Mormon and, having grown up in the church, I can tell you anti-Mormon bias is a very real phenomenon. (In fact, my grandmothers family genealogy website is so gloriously detailed that I can tell you Mitt and I are distant relatives.)

Further, as an adult convert to Lutheranism, my churchs belief in Two Kingdoms theology is somewhat accurately summed up by the apocryphal Martin Luther quote, It is better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. I have zero problem voting for Mormons, and Im certain I share Mitts wary approach to evangelical leaders who actively court political influence.

But that doesnt mean you can brush off questions of religious differences as unfair, either. Mormons, for instance, do not believe in original sin, and whether men are inherently self-interested and sinful is not exactly an issue incidental to basic conservative political philosophy.

Instead, the approach to handling these issues in the book often comes off as hubris; Romney is again portrayed as more devout and sincere than so many of his critics. This is typified by an anecdote: Jerry Falwell questions Mitt about why Mormons dont believe in the Christian conception of the Trinity, and instead believe there are three distinct entities. Romney allegedly gets Falwell to admit most people would agree with you.

Although I dont have too much regard for Falwells religious bent, I have a hard time imagining that exchange went down quite the way it is presented. Even if it did, its hard to imagine a heretical belief would be excused simply because a large number of Christians mistakenly believe it.

Indeed, the tenets of his faith, Romneys devout adherence in the form of prayers and blessings, and his interactions with the prophets, seers, and revelators Mormons believe lead their church are brought up so often in this book the cumulative impression is that Mitts faith is the reason he can be anointed the Lone Righteous Republican. I dont think that was intentional. Its just that as two high-profile Mormons in politics, Coppins and Romney are so used to doing PR for the church they didnt know when they crossed the line between helpful and harmful.

Lest you think Im being uncharitable in my interpretation, I would note that the review of this book in The New Yorker a periodical not exactly known for respecting conservatives or traditional religious expression is insultingly headlined, Did Mitt Romney Save His Soul? Its also not exactly subtle in its conclusion that Romneys salvific fate is tied to his willingness to become one of the few in his party willing to criticize Trumps excesses. And boy, is it laid on thick:

His church teaches him that, one day, he will stand before God and face an accounting, for his thoughts, words, and works. He will have to explain his time in politics the positions he took, the compromises he made, where he chose to stand firm. If Romney is at a loss, he might bring along Coppinss record of his reckoning.

In any event, the idea of this book as a testament to Romneys works-righteousness is somewhat amusing, because it also details feuds with prominent co-religionists. Theres a detailed recounting of more than two decades worth of petty swipes between Romney and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and his billionaire father, neither of whom are hardcore Trumpy conservatives.

Then theres Utahs senior senator, Mike Lee. Romney doesnt like Lee for the obvious reasons like most in his party, Lee came around to supporting Trump, and Lee once called a bill Romney supported an orgiastic convulsion of federal spending. But then theres this:

Though Lee was technically Utahs senior senator, few in the state or the Senate thought of him that way. As a former presidential nominee, Romney had all the name recognition and the gravitas. He was Mitch McConnells first call on any Utah-related issue, and everything he said seemed to attract national media coverage. At six foot two, he even physically towered over his colleague.Maybe, Romney mused to one confidant, he just cant stand being in my shadow.

I dont feel compelled to litigate Lees political career, except to say that I can confidently say his deep knowledge of the Constitution and American history commands respect among peers in the Senate. The suggestion Lee doesnt agree with Romney because he literally doesnt see eye to eye with him is so juvenile it can hardly be defended as an offhand comment.

I dont know what purpose it serves to be recorded for posterity in a book that some are grandiosely suggesting Romney might bring along to stand before God and face an accounting. In the meantime, I would suggest the rest of us bring along an airsickness bag.

There are still more slights to catalog against Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Hawley, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, J.D. Vance, Ron DeSantis, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, et al., but they are for the most part drearily predictable criticisms. In any event, you can read a more exhaustive accounting of Romneys sickest burns in The New York Times. At this point, its far more interesting and insightful to take a look at who Romney respects, rather than who he doesnt:

At a moment of rising authoritarianism at home and abroad, when the countrys founding ideas of democracy and self-governance were suddenly up for debate, Romney and Biden seemed to recognize in each other a shared set of values that transcended normal politics.

One Sunday morning, Romney was sitting in church when the number for the White House appeared on his phone. He climbed over the grandkids who were sitting next to him in the pew and took the call in the foyer. It was the president.

I just wanted to call and tell you that I admire your character and your personal honor, Biden said. We disagree on a lot of things, but I think highly of you as a person.

Romney, taken aback by the out-of-nowhere compliment, responded in kind. I feel the same way.

Im sorry, but what exactly about Joe Biden does Mitt Romney think highly of? I hope its not his current performance as president. This is a man who got busted for plagiarism in law school and as a senator. A politician who once made up the fact he got an award from segregationist George Wallace and tried to win over a crowd in Alabama by telling them Delawareans were on the Souths side in the Civil War, but later had the temerity to tell a black audience that Romney was trying to put yall back in chains.

Romney apparently feels Biden is simpatico in his concern about rising authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Bidens DOJ is arresting people for protesting against abortion, labeling parents terrorists for objecting to lesson plans that look like they were authored by Mao Tse-Tung and Larry Flynt, and investigating Catholics for the crime of going to Latin Mass.

Biden has repeatedly lied about the death of his own son and his wife in order to get political sympathy, and even The Washington Post stripped the bark off him for how selfishly he handled the families of the soldiers who died in his disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Romney thinks highly of Biden, but wants it known he disdains a squared-away fellow Mormon such as Lee?

Of course, one reason Romney might think highly of Biden is that hes dangerously out-of-touch, to the point hes unaware of the most basic facts pertaining to Bidens corruption. Romney was the sole Republican to vote for Trumps first impeachment, and this section of the book is replete with examples of Romney acting aghast that his Republican colleagues responded to the impeachment case against Trump in a political fashion, rather than examining the evidence against Trump and acting as an impartial jury, as Romney insists that he did. But Im not sure Romney had a grasp of the most basic facts of the impeachment, based on this exchange with Sean Hannity:

Next, Hannity demanded to know why Romney wasnt more outraged by the Burisma scandal. Romney who didnt spend enough time in the conservative media bubble to know the shorthand for Hunter Bidens allegedly corrupt dealings with a Ukrainian energy company responded by asking, Whats Burisma? Hannity exploded: How do you not know what Burisma is?

Conservative media bubble? Huh? Hunter Bidens corrupt payoffs from the Ukrainian gas company were not a small story, even in the legacy media. In fact, I count 22 mentions of Burisma on The Atlantics website all in the months leading up to Romneys impeachment vote. (Additionally, former CIA official Cofer Black the national security adviser to Romneys 2012 campaign served on Burismas board alongside Hunter Biden.)

Burisma was not an incidental matter, because one potential defense of Trump asking Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into Hunter Bidens shady million-dollar-a-year deal with the Ukrainian gas company was that Biden might, in fact, be implicated in actual foreign corruption. And whether the optics of a president investigating his partisan opposition are bad or not, that was exactly the precedent set in 2016.

The results of that investigation are pretty well-established: Obama and Biden were both aware of the bogus collusion investigation into Trump, while the FBI went around manufacturing evidence to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump and running down leads compiled in an outrageously inaccurate dossier bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

In the first impeachment that Romney endorsed, House Democrats took the unprecedented and suspicious step of interviewing all the witnesses in Trumps first impeachment trial, save the first one, behind closed doors. Procedural rules put in place meant House members were under threat of ethics charges if they discussed what was said. That was almost certainly to keep Republicans from publicly asking questions about Bidens corruption.

Biden then skated through the election brazenly lying about having no contact with Hunter Bidens business dealings. We now have photos of Biden dining in Georgetown with Hunters business partners from that obscure company Burisma, all while the vice president was the White House point man on Ukraine policy. Then theres the personal testimony from Hunters business partner that Joe Biden was being cut in on deals being struck with China. For his sake, Im just going to assume that if Romney understood a fraction of this, he wouldnt think highly of Biden as a person or consider his impeachment vote the result of a man who studiously examined the evidence.

But ignorance still doesnt explain how Romney would treat so many Republicans unsparingly and then turn around and approach Democrats with the naivete God gave trout. Heres how Romney responded to McConnells assertion that the House Democrats acted politically when they voted to impeach Trump:

We have good arguments to oppose [Trumps] removal, he told his aides. But it was disingenuous to assert that the entire Democratic Party had been plotting impeachment from the moment Trump took office. Mitch knows better.

Disingenuous? The Washington Post ran an article headlined, The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun the day Trump was inaugurated. House Democrats first introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in 2017 and two more times before Trumps first impeachment, all for trivial reasons.

And elsewhere Romney and Coppins simply fail to fact-check. The obligatory mention of Charlottesville is as bad as you would expect: The next week, when Trump was asked at a press conference about the violence, he said there were very fine people on both sides. Romney, appalled, wrote on his list, Presidents equivocation/incitement of race/bigotry.

Of course, Trump never made that equivocation. When he referred to very fine people on both sides, any fair reading of his remarks recognizes that he was talking about those participating in the broader debate over tearing down historical statues.

Elsewhere in those same remarks he specifically condemned the violent neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, so its simply not fair to say he was praising them. Even CNN hosts have admitted as much. At most you can ding Trump for not being as clear in his rhetoric as the moment called for, but then again, Romney is proudly publicly identified with a church that didnt allow black people to hold leadership positions until he was 31 years old. Perhaps before labeling Trump racist, he is owed a modicum of the grace Romneys been extended on that matter.

And then theres this astounding bit, which I simply cant believe made it into the book: On April 23,Trump mused during one of his briefings that perhaps Americans should inject themselves with bleach as a treatment for COVID-19. Trump, of course, never said Americans should inject themselves. The undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security presented a study showing disinfectants would kill the Covid-19 virus, which prompted Trump to unhelpfully spitball about the role disinfectants might play in developing medical treatments for Covid.

It would be interesting to check if there is a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning before later clarifying it wouldnt be through injections, were talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesnt work. Even the usually odious media fact checkers admit the bit about people injecting themselves with disinfectants is false: Despite Trumps dubious, conjectural and inarticulate comments, he did not directly suggest that people inject themselves with disinfectant.

It should have been enough to insist that the lack of clarity and general cluelessness in Trumps remarks that day were a good example of how he mishandled a major public health crisis in a way that is dangerously unacceptable for a president. Yet by the end of the book we learn Romney doesnt just believe Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach, hes heavily invested in self-justification based on a myth:

He nursed a particular fantasy in which he devoted an entire debate to asking Trump to explain why, in the early weeks of the pandemic, hed suggested that Americans inject bleach as a treatment for COVID-19. To Romney, this comment represented the apotheosis of the former presidents idiocy, and it still bothered him that the country had simply laughed at it and moved on. Every time Donald Trump makes a strong argument, Id say, Remind me again about the Clorox, Romney told me. Every now and then, I would cough and go Clorox.

To be clear, defending many of Trumps remarks and much of his conduct is a fools errand, one I dont typically care to engage in. I did not vote for Trump in 2016 and only did so in 2020 because it seemed obvious enough a Biden presidency would be a world-in-flames disaster, an assessment I do not revel in being right about.

But that just makes it further mystifying, given all the legitimate things Trump and Republicans could be criticized for, why is so much of what animates Romney petty at best and untrue at worst?

Its even more bizarre when you consider this is the result of Romney uncritically swallowing establishment media narratives, years after his run for president where the same establishment called him racist, said he gave people cancer, and dubiously accused him of being a gay bully in prep school, as if it was somehow relevant to the presidential race. Its recounted in the book that no less a figure than Bill Clinton tells Romney that The New York Times where columnist Gail Collins insinuated Romney abused the family dog more than 80 times was unfair to him.

Yet that experience somehow imparted no skepticism about how others, let alone the next GOP presidential candidate, might be unfairly treated by the media? Similarly, does Mitt not recognize that the media were rendered powerless to rein in Trump largely because they eviscerated their credibility with Republican voters by libeling him?

Regardless, one thing is very clear. If the portrait of Romney in this book is accurate, no one as credulous and ignorant as Mitt Romney is entitled to this much sanctimony.

If I may say something positive about Romney, he does come off as clear-eyed about the failure of his 2012 campaign and his role in it. In particular, he beats himself up quite a bit for his infamous comment during the campaign that 47 percent of Americans believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

Its good that he recognizes the bootstrapping condescension of establishment Republicanism was a losing message, even if hes unwilling to recognize that he has that in common with Trump.

But in other key respects his 2012 revisionism is baffling. I vastly overstated how bad [Obama] was for the country and the economy, Romney says. I think what presidents accomplish by virtue of their personal character is at least as great as what they accomplish by virtue of their policies.

However, theres been an exceptionally divisive hard-left cultural lurch Obama enthusiastically endorsed that I cant imagine Romney agrees with. Does Romney really not grasp how incredibly destructive, say, Obamas decision to force schools to allow men into high school womens bathrooms has been?

Further, we can certainly compare economic and foreign policy track records before, during, and after Trump and honestly conclude Americans were safer and prospered more under Trump by many basic metrics. Romney is no doubt underestimating the effect of good policy and, at a minimum, overestimating Obamas character.

But if we do accept that character is supreme, and I do agree it is a very important characteristic in political leaders, its also true that nobodys perfect. This naturally raises the question of what levels of character deficiencies are acceptable to Romney, since Trump is clearly over the line. And this book contains an answer that explains a lot. Hillary Clinton is wrong on every issue, Romney told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival, but shes wrong within the normal parameters.

Indeed, the concerted attempt over decades to redefine the likes of Hillary Clintons political career as falling within the normal parameters is exactly how we got Trump. On issue after issue, voters were told to swallow the establishment spin excusing the toxic behavior of anointed elites who disregarded the needs of ordinary people.

Voters were told to be appalled by the crass fraud of Trump University and accept that the Clinton Global Initiative was something other than a nine-figure shakedown operation. It was intolerable Trump had extramarital affairs and supposedly broke campaign finance laws paying off a porn star, but Hillary Clinton owed her career to claiming that those objecting to her talented husband using state troopers as pimps, defiling the Oval Office, and jetting off to Jeffrey Epsteins pedo island were part of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

We were supposed to be gravely concerned about a ginned-up deep-state investigation into Trump, while FBI Director James Comey goes on television and invents a nonexistent legal rationale for why Hillary wouldnt be charged for intentionally mishandling classified documents, obstructing the investigation, and destroying evidence. The fact that Romney, along with so much of the D.C. establishment, was invested in the idea there was a clear ethical choice in 2016, when voters had lots of good reasons to see it differently, says volumes.

Now maybe all of this ire directed at Trump and just about everyone else would be much more tolerable if it were contrasted with a winsome and compelling vision for American politics that takes into account the rifts Trump exposed between the political establishment and voters. Instead, Romneys post-Trump career is explained away with a farrago of rationalizations for why Romney seriously considered Trumps offer to make him secretary of state in spite of his loathing of the former president, as well as a frequently unconvincing account of his quixotic motives during his time in the Senate.

Its further hard not to notice, as the book winds down, that Romney places himself at the center of a lot of delusional plans to stop Trump that would also have the added benefit of presenting himself as Americas political savior. In 2016, he considered running with Ted Cruz against Trump; Romney considered running as an independent in 2020 on a ticket with Oprah Winfrey (Oprah denies this, for what thats worth); while in the Senate, he pitched Joe Manchin on the idea of starting a new political party; and when he explored a 2024 run for president, Kyrsten Sinema was high on the list of potential running mates. Because embracing a bisexual Democrat who left the Mormon church and refused to be sworn into the Senate by putting her hand on a Bible really speaks to Mitts commitment to showing Republican voters that character reigns supreme.

Im honestly at a loss here. Ive been covering Romney off and on for nearly 25 years, and I know several people who have interacted with him and his family and have nothing but glowing things to say. Given my own Mormon background, I had always felt something of a kinship with the man (literally, it turns out). I have publicly defended him in print dozens of times and dont regret what I said. Im still inclined to like and respect him.

But for a lot of readers, the story of Romney turning on his political party after briefly being their standard bearer is simply confirmation of their long-held belief that the political opposition is wicked. I dont want to believe this book exists merely because Mitt craves barking-seal approval of congratulatory texts from George Clooney and all the other influential people who used to hate him. But theres also nothing in this book that suggests any ideological constancy on his part. The only throughline is bitterness directed at almost everyone who got in his way.

In the epilogue, Coppins claims Romneys rationalizations fascinate me because theyre so common in Washington. However, the line between rationalizations and delusions is mighty thin at times in this book, and Romneys judgments cant always be explained away with Coppins borderline-absurd attempts at providing favorable context for Romneys judgments.

(E.g. Romneys understandable aversion to Trumps immigration rhetoric is undercut by Coppins taking the extra step to wave away the entire issue by informing us right-wing media churned out baseless stories claiming [immigrant caravans are] a Trojan horse for murderous cartels, even though The New York Times agrees illegal immigration is multi-billion-dollar international business controlled by organized crime, including some of Mexicos most violent drug cartels.)

In the end, its impossible to explain away this many recriminations as well-intentioned, and theres a tragic irony in the fact that the man who made Romney this way thrives on uncharitable rhetoric. The difference is that the case for Trump is best expressed as a transactional one based on his broader economic and foreign policy accomplishments as president, and however corrosive Trumps personal traits may be, there are many fewer public justifications being offered for them.

By contrast, until I read Romney: A Reckoning, it had never occurred to me that the most obvious reason Romneys political career petered out in a hail of grievances is that hes turned into and it pains me to say this about an otherwise exemplary man kind of an asshole.

More here:

Mitt Romney, We Hardly Knew Ye - The Federalist

ROCK SPRINGS Polygamy was renounced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1890. Since then, they excommunicate members if they supported the practice.

Rock Springs resident Clark Allred and local author was about 13 years old when his Uncle Rulon was murdered by a rival polygamist leader. His uncle was the leader of a Mormon fundamentalist polygamist group, the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB).

After the death of his uncle, Allreds father, Owen, became the leader in 1977.

Allred grew up in Bluffdale, a suburb of Salt Lake City, not far from Jordan River.

We were the only ones out there at the time, said Allred, mentioning the town had a one-lane road back then. It was just us.

Allred was aware that his father had many wives, even at a young age.

Dad was at our house once-a-week, so I grew up knowing about it, he said, noting that his father had eight wives and had even built the first duplex in town for his first four wives.

Allreds father had 23 children and over 200 grandchildren.

Allred began to get acquainted with his siblings by the time he was 7 or 8 years old. His brothers built their houses near Allred, making it easier to get to know them.

Outside of polygamy, we followed Mormonism to a T, he pointed out, saying that Owen was close friends with Spencer W. Kimball, who was the 12th president of the Mormon church.

Kimball and several other church officials were aware of AUB but overlooked it since the group adhered to local laws.

My dad was well-respected by law officials, Allred revealed. In fact, when other groups were giving law officials trouble, theyd ask my dad for help and advice.

He said that his father was best known for his outspoken criticism of child abuse and marriages of girls under the age of 18. He also opposed arranged marriages and marriages between relatives.

Allreds father was interviewed by The New York Times in 2002. During the interview, he said, People have the wrong idea that were old-time kooks who prey on young girls.

Allred said, Dad was the person couples had to get the blessing from. He wanted to stick with the laws of the land.

He mentioned that if a man married an underage girl, it was done without his fathers blessing.

His father hated the child abuse that occurred in many polygamist groups and encouraged members of the AUB to report abuse to law enforcement officials.

They didnt believe in receiving state assistance for financial or housing needs, as well.

Dad always believed that you need to work hard and take care of your family. He always frowned upon those living off the government.

Allreds education merely consisted of Book of Mormon lessons in private basements. He had to teach himself how to read and write.

I despised those teachings, he chuckled, explaining that eventually a curriculum was introduced. Now, theres three schools there.

One of his mothers, Ruth, pushed Allred to write stories.

I wouldnt have done it without her, he expressed, pointing to one of the latest sci-fi novels he wrote, Dracaeda.

Susan is Allreds first and only wife. The couple had courted a couple of others, but at the last minute, we decided against it, thankfully, he said.

He explained that part of their belief was If youre not part of the church during the Second Coming, you wont be risen off the Earth. Youll be killed along with everyone else.

He and Susan had spent time with a Mormon family. He recalls how good they were and thought it was unfair that they wouldnt be saved.

Right before her death, his mother, Anna, believed that if someone isnt part of the church, he or she will not be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom, which is the three degrees or kingdoms of glory in heaven.

Ultimately, he started questioning and realizing things werent adding up.

I told my dad I just didnt think it was right, referring to the fate of those who still do good deeds.

Allred said he and his father were sitting at the kitchen table, having lunch when he admitted that he couldnt live in polygamy. His father cried, thinking that he had lost his sons respect. Allred told him that the AUB lifestyle is just not for him.

I had once wanted to lead the church after he died, he admitted. I was his right-hand man. I wanted to take over. When I married Susan, I wanted to follow in his footsteps, but that changed.

He added, I was scared to death at first because I hadnt come to grips on whether there was a heaven and a hell. I was worried that the two, indeed, exist and I was worried that I was wrong.

It was a fear I carried for many years after we left the group. I kept thinking, If Im wrong, Im going to be in trouble.

After Allred broke away from the religion, he got a job at a bar.

The longer I worked at the bar, the further Susan and I got away from it.

Eventually, it was the excitement that fueled his days; it carried him through his new life more than anything else, he said.

He pointed out that when one is confined to a certain lifestyle and you have the world out here, suddenly, its opened to anything.

He said, Its like being a kid with candy for the first time. You just want to gobble it all up.

As he was growing up, members of AUB were taught to stay together.

You couldnt be too far away because you never knew when the end was coming, he said, revealing that their temples are also in other areas in the country.

He remembers the day he and Susan left their house in Bluffdale. By the time they were in Toole, he began to worry that the end was going to happen at that moment.

Will I be close enough to the temple and my family to survive?

Eventually, he learned that heaven and hell arent what his church said they were.

When I finally realized that, I was able to separate myself and be more comfortable, he said. The heartache of leaving my family is what took over next.

He expressed how much he misses his mothers and siblings.

My whole life was around my brothers and sisters. We did everything together. And my mothers. It didnt matter which house I went to; I would get a hug and a kiss. I had a huge family. All that is gone.

That was the hardest thing I had to work past.

He expressed that many family members did not accept their decision.

We were hated at first. Not only did I leave the group, but I was the prophets son so that made it worse.

Allreds father passed away in 2005 at the age of 91.

Regarding love, Allred said that he was taught that youre married for all time and eternity.

Polygamy was so hard on the wives but not on the husbands, he said. The husbands loved it. They had it easy. My mom even said once, I never want to live with dad in heaven.

Allred was confused because her statement went against everything he was taught.

It was a love-hate relationship, he pointed out. The wives were closer to each other than they were with dad. They loved dad and they respected each other.

When Allred wanted to live in polygamy, he had told Susan that its something youre going to have to deal with. She clearly told him that she wasnt comfortable with that at all.

I told her, If we want to get to heaven, this is what we need to do, he said. A lot of women hated it. To me, it wasnt love. They were living a religion. They had kids because they had to procreate. Love wasnt part of it. Romance wasnt part of it. How do you romance eight women?

He added, Theres so much under the skin hatred for the religion, but they do it because they believe thats how they enter heaven.

Allred expressed no regrets in leaving AUB, saying, I didnt love and understand my wife until we pulled ourselves away from the church.

Allred will be celebrating his 40th wedding anniversary in August.

Weve stuck it out through thick and thin. I cant imagine doing anything without her; our morning routines, our second job together. When Im in pain, shes the only one Id want to comfort me. Our relationship is better now than it was ten years ago. Were constantly making it better. It hasnt gone downhill and Im thankful for that.

Get any of our free email newsletters news headlines, sports, arts & entertainment, state legislature, CFD news, and more.

Continued here:

Living in polygamy: Local author looks back on growing up in ... - Wyoming Tribune

It's not easy being Sister Wives star Robyn Brown, and her recent shift towards monogamy will probably lead to even more shade from her haters, particularly if she was faking her passion for polygamy all along. Robyn's a catalyst for drama, despite a meek and mild demeanor that may cloak the steeliest resolve. Is Robyn the iron fist in the velvet glove? Maybe, but changing her opinions on plural marriage could lead to criticism that really hurts. While there may be those who respect Robyn for making it clear that she doesn't want to share Kody Brown, others are going to call her a hypocrite. She's been called worse.

The show launched in 2010, and over the majority of its 17 seasons, Sister Wives' Robyn Brown's been the show's primary villain. Before three wives fled, Robyn ruled the roost. Logic would dictate that Kody was the true "baddie" on the series, as his blatant favoritism gave Robyn her power. However, Robyn got most of the backlash. Her syrupy kindness to the now-former wives, Meri, Janelle and Christine Brown, didn't exactly ring true. The endless crying jags were a nightmare, along with the way she always had to be seated beside Kody, like the queen of cringe with her king. Now, she's trying to stop Kody from courting a potential new wife.

Related: Why Sister Wives' Robyn & Kody Brown Are Basically Monogamous

It's not impossible that Robyn was just playing a part, metaphorically stepping onto the stage when she began to romance Kody. While her parents were part of a plural marriage, that isn't proof positive that Robyn was fully onboard with the concept, as she would have seen the drawbacks up close, and those are considerable. If Robyn was faking her love of polygamy way back when, she might have had an endgame in mind, just like a Marvel movie screenwriter. The goal would be her and Kody together, and NO OTHER WIVES.

For whatever reason, when Robyn droned on about the wonders of polygamy, it wasn't totally believable. She'd give herself away with passive-aggressive actions that showed an ulterior motive. For example, she made sure that Meri would have to legally divorce Kody, so he could adopt Robyn's kids. That's quite a lot to ask of another woman.

Was adoption all that was about? There appears to be something decidedly icy under the surface, a flaw in Robyn's character that inspires her to say one thing and do another. The devout purity that Robyn espoused was like a flawless diamond, but the glittering gemstone that was her devotion to her sister wives (and her faith) might have been a rhinestone. Was she simply acting out what should be heartfelt and genuine?

Change can be grueling, but necessary and healthy. In a new Queens of the Stone Age hit, "Emotion Sickness," Josh Homme sings, "How we grow is so painful/believe me." Robyn's been through a lot over the years, and may be tired of being painted as a two-dimensional Disney Evil Queen, or polygamy's poster girl.

She's a real woman, after all - she has kids, she's getting older, and her relationship with Kody isn't perfect. However, it's obvious that her marriage is important to her. Whether she's making her kids by another man call Kody "Daddy," or sticking like glue to her guy during a worldwide pandemic, she's so often annoying. However, there may be a heart beating under those modest print blouses.

Robyn gets dragged, but upon careful re-watching, viewers may notice that she's usually the most polite of the wives. She treats Kody with the most respect too. While the tears are a nuisance, she often expresses opinions that show a fairly impressive level of smarts and common sense, except when she's getting kooky by putting her most extravagant magical thinking on display. At the outset, she did sweep in like a Disney Princess, rather than an Evil Queen. Petite and charming, she stole Kody's heart, but does that make her a bad person?

The Sister Wives saga has been long, with peaks and valleys, from the "war" over the choicest plots at Coyote Pass, to the sad acceptance that the plural marriage experiment was a total failure. Through it all, Robyn's stayed with Kody, and maybe not for the wrong reasons. While she may have faked her love of polygamy, or just changed, she's still interested in being Kody's wife, and the others just aren't.

Meri, Janelle and Christine might have left because of her, but Robyn is there for Kody. She's somewhat complex, and that's interesting. It's possible that Sister Wives viewers will never know her whole heart and mind, but maybe Kody does, or will.

Go here to read the rest:

Sister Wives: Robyn Brown's All About Monogamy Now (Was She ... - Screen Rant

Once this core democratic issue is sorted the rest of UCC shall follow more smoothly. Sequencing is the essence of good social reform

The discussions on Uniform Civil Code (UCC) are going sideways because of the reluctance in stating that the real aim is to ban polygamy, which allows a man to have more than one wife. The rest of UCC is really background noise. That the call for UCC only appears in the Constitution as one of the non-justiciable Directive Principles, makes it appear like a promise akin to jam yesterday, jam tomorrow but never today. Alice in Wonderland, once more. This positioning of UCC in the Constitution took away its urgency though it bobbed up, from time to time, in lazy, hazy conversations before it was patted back to bed. Its relevance gradually faded away, allowing polygamy to reset the alarm and go back to sleep. It was in the 1980s that it was rudely woken up when the Shah Bano case made polygamy among Muslims a national scandal; even so it did not really stir the entire UCC package.

Go here to read the rest:

First, make all polygamy illegal | India News - Times of India - Times of India

By Syed Khalique Ahmed*

The Mumbai-based International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS), working under the Central government, has blasted the myth that Muslims are the only polygynous community, with males having more than one wife. IIPS recent research report, uploaded on its website, says that polygamy is the highest among Christians in India, followed by Muslims and Hindus.

The report comes amidst raging debate on the Uniform Civil Code(UCC), with many right-wingers, including BJP leaders, elected representatives to state assemblies, Parliament, and ministers throwing their weight around the demand for a UCC, particularly to ban polygyny among Muslims, as they believe that every Muslim man marries four wives and hold Muslim community responsible for growth of population in the country, a new research has exposed their claims.

The latest research on polygamy tendencies by IIPS, a deemed-to-be-university, and an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (GoI), has concluded that Christians as faith group are the most polygamous in India, followed by Muslims and Hindus. The researchers who conducted the study are Harihar Sahoo, R Nagarajan and Chaitali Mandal.

The research is based on the data collected from the fifth round of National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) conducted between 2019 and 2021. NFHS data is based on the statements of married women who stated that their husbands had other wife or wives besides themselves.

According to the IIPS data, the rate of polygyny among Christians, as per the NFHS-5, is 2.1% against 1.9% among Muslims and 1.3% among Hindus. Thus, the difference between Muslims and Hindus polygyny rate is just 0.6 per cent.

Likewise, polygyny rate was found to be 0.5% among Sikhs during the period covered by NFHS-5, 1.3 per cent among Buddhists and 2.5 per cent among others (religion/caste group not stated).

According to the research, the national average of polygyny is 1.4%, indicating a declining trend, because it was 1.9% during NHFS-3 (2006-2006) and 1.6% during NHFS-4 (2015-16). The research says that polygyny decreased in almost every state from 2015-16 to 2019-21, with the exception of nine states (Chandigarh, Delhi, Punjab, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Meghalaya, Tripura, Maharashtra, and Puducherry). Though the polygyny is not legal in India for any community other than Muslims, the IIPS research says it is still prevalent among non-Muslims in various parts of India.

Polygyny in India is more prevalent in Northeastern and the Southern states of India, as well Sikkim bordering Nepal. According to the report, Meghalaya (6.1%), Mizoram(4.1%) and Arunachal Pradesh (3.7%) in the Northeast have the largest prevalence of polygyny. The current rate of polygyny is 3.9% in Sikkim.

In South India, the highest prevalence of polygyny is in Telangana (2.9%), Karnataka (2.4), Puducherry (2.4%) and Tamilnadu(2%). In South India, practitioners of polygyny are generally Hindus. The districts with high rate of polygyny are: East Jantia Hills (20%), West Jantia Hills (14.5%), West Khasi (10.9%), South West Khasi Hills(6.4 %), Ribhoi (6.2%), East Khasi Hills (5.8%), all in Meghalaya. The other districts are: Kra Daadi(16.4%), East Kameng(10.2%), Papum Pare(6.9%), Kurung Kumey(6.6%), Lower Subansir(5%), Upper Subansiri(4.9%), all in Arunachal Pradesh. Then there are other districts with high rate of polygyny: Bijapur (5.9) in Chattisgarh, and Yadgir(46%) in Karnataka. Lowest polygyny in regions with Muslim concentration

What needs to be noted is that the states or regions with Muslim dominance are among the states with least prevalence of polygyny. For instance, Lakshadweep with almost 100% of Muslim population and Jammu & Kashmir with overwhelming majority of Muslims have only 0.5 % and 0.4% of polygyny, respectively, busting the politically-motivated claims of Hindu right-wingers that every Muslim man practices polygyny.

The rate of polygyny among Christians, as per the NFHS-5, is 2.1% against 1.9% among Muslims and 1.3% among Hindus

The study indicates that polygynous marriages are more prevalent among women who had no formal education (2.4%) than among those who had higher educational (0.3%) qualifications.

Polygamy was most prevalent among the poorest women and women who had no formal education. It is also most prevalent in rural areas (1.6%) than in urban areas (0.6%). Polygyny is also more prevalent among poorer people (2.4%) and very less (0.5%) among rich people.

Polygamy in other countries According the Pew Research Centers survey by Stephanie Kramer in 2020, polygamy is prevalent in several countries of the world like Germany, Russia,, China, Iran, Canada and the US where it is less than 0.5%. In Iraq, it is 2%.

West and Central African countries like Burkina Faso (36%), Mali (34%) and Nigeria (28%) etc. are the polygyny centres of the world, with people living with more than one wives. Religion wise, they are mostly Christians and Muslims. But even people belonging to folk religions or no religion at all in Burkina Faso practice polygyny (45 %).

The Pew Research says that many of the countries that permit polygamy have Muslim majorities, but the practice of polygamy is rare in many of them. The report says that countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt are Muslim majority and polygamy is allowed there, but only less than 1% of men live with more than one or two wives.

The Pew Research is, however, silent on polygamy in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates and their neighbouring Muslim majority countries because of lack of data from these countries.

According to Pew Research, one-in-five US adults consider polygamy as morally acceptable. The Pew report about the US is based on a Gallup Poll conducted in 2003. More than conservatives (9%), liberals (34%) see polygamy as morally acceptable.

Writer is Editor in Chief IndiaTomorrow_

The rest is here:

Polygamy going down among Muslims, says GoI supported ... - THE INDIAN AWAAZ

Following is another in a series of columns on The Baptist Faith & Message 2000.

Article XVIII of The Baptist Faith & Message 2000 reads:

God has ordained the family as the foundational institution of human society. It is composed of persons related to one another by marriage, blood, or adoption.

Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. It is Gods unique gift to reveal the union between Christ and His church and to provide for the man and the woman in marriage the framework for intimate companionship, the channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of the human race.

The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in Gods image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to His people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation.

Children, from the moment of conception, are a blessing and heritage from the Lord. Parents are to demonstrate to their children Gods pattern for marriage. Parents are to teach their children spiritual and moral values and to lead them, through consistent lifestyle example and loving discipline, to make choices based on biblical truth. Children are to honor and obey their parents.

Southern Baptists added Article XVIII to the Baptist Faith & Message in 1998, thus making it part of the 1963 confession and carrying it forward into the 2000 edition. Witnessing the erosion of our cultures view of marriage, family, and gender, Southern Baptists boldly reaffirmed Gods unchanging standards as revealed in Scripture and embraced by Christians throughout the centuries.

Today, the prevailing secular view is that marriage is an archaic, man-made institution in need of revision. Further, modern culture views the family as an evolutionary unit that may be restructured to meet changing societal needs, and gender as a subjective personal choice.

But the Bible says otherwise. Marriage, family, and gender are gifts from God. They are established and fixed for the good of all people, who are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).

Marriage is the first institution God ordains, and he does so before the Fall (see Gen. 2:18-25). The consistent standard of Scripture is that marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime. The gift of sexual intimacy is for pleasure and procreation within the confines of monogamous marriage, requiring unselfishness and purity (see Heb. 13:4).

When biblical figures even heroes like King David engage in sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage, it often ends badly. Polygamy proves no less a sin.

Further, marriage should be highly prized, for it is given to us as a metaphor for the relationship between Christ and his church. The Lord Jesus is depicted as the bridegroom, and his church is the bride (see Matt. 9:15; John 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7; 21:2; 22:17; cf. Matt. 25:1-13).

The apostle Paul develops this concept more fully in his letter to the Ephesians, where he instructs wives to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. He goes on to say, Husbands, love your wives, just a Christ loved the church and gave himself for her (Eph. 5:22-23, 25).

Paul links marriage and the church back to the garden of Eden and Gods creative intent for fidelity in covenant relationships: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church (Eph. 5:31-32).

Husbands are to provide for their families and protect them from harm. They also are to be the spiritual leaders in the marriage and family not in a tyrannical sense but on the basis of spiritual authority as demonstrated in the faithfulness of Jesus (see Col. 3:18-21).

Wives are equal partners in marriage, as both are created in the image of God. At the same time, a wife is to receive the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation (BF&M Article XVIII).

Biblically, a family consists of persons related by marriage, blood, or adoption. A family, consisting of a father, a mother, and their children, reflects Gods glory in the right ordering of civilization and society.

This means that family, like marriage, is central to Gods design for humanity. It requires love, order, intimacy, and unity qualities that have existed throughout eternity within the members of the Trinity.

All people, whether married or unmarried, are related to family through various ties of blood, kinship, or adoption. Yahweh is a relational God, and he made us to thrive in relationships, as well.

He even adopts followers of Jesus as his sons and daughters (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; 4:6; Eph. 1:5). This is good for us to remember. In the ancient Near East, a persons family of origin and ancestry formed his or her primary identity. This continued for first-century Christians with an important twist: their identity is now the family of God gathered around Christ.

As Jonathan Pennington notes, The most frequent metaphor used to describe Christians is brother and sister. This family language is very purposeful, teaching Christians to realign their allegiances around their new identity as the children of God.

Modern culture seeks to redefine the family and celebrate alternative expressions of it. Examples include same-sex marriage, cohabitation, polygamy, polyandry, and more. But as Charles Kelley, Richard Land, and Albert Mohler explain, The family is not a laboratory for social experimentation but an arena in which Gods glory is shown to the world in the right ordering of human relationships.

Children are to be welcomed as blessings from God. Parents have a God-ordained responsibility to raise them in the training and instruction of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). In return, children are to honor and obey their parents, which is pleasing to God (Exod. 20:12; Eph. 6:1-3).

Scripture is clear that God created human beings male and female, and he did so that we might be his image bearers (Gen. 1:26-27). This doesnt mean God, who is spirit, has gender, although the eternal Son of God became flesh as a man (John 1:14; 1 Tim. 2:5), and the other members of the Trinity are depicted in masculine terms in Scripture.

It does mean, however, that God created men and women in a complementary way for marriage and procreation. Further, their intimacy as husband and wife reflects the intimacy of the members of the Trinity, as well as the close bond between Christ and his church.

God defines gender. Humans redefine it at their peril. Gender may be confirmed through God-given physical evidence genetic, biological, and anatomical, for example. Humans are to celebrate gender as a gift from God.

At the same time, gender confusion including a condition known as gender dysphoria is nearly as old as the Fall. Because human beings created in the image of God live in a fallen world, the lines between male and female are sometimes blurred for example, in those rare instances when a person is born with both male and female features, and, more commonly, in those who feel intense emotional unease with their birth gender.

In every case, followers of Jesus are to treat those who struggle with gender confusion with compassion and understanding, knowing that we, too, are subject to frailties of our own. At the same time, we should help our friends rediscover Gods gift of gender, sharing a biblical view of what it means to be men and women created in the image of God.

Next: A 2023 amendment to The Baptist Faith & Message.

See original here:

Article XVIII of the BF&M: The Family - The Pathway

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .Sweet Spirit, what souls are these who run through this black haze? And he to me: These are the nearly soulless whose lives concluded neither blame nor praise. They are mixed here with that despicable corps of angels who were neither for God nor Satan, but only for themselves. The High Creator scourged them from Heaven for its perfect beauty, and Hell will not receive them since the wicked might feel some glory over them.

Lets start with Dante and his description of those souls who tried to be neutral on earth, neither good nor bad, just OK. For Dante, they were the most despicable people in the afterlife. They do not go to hell, per se, because they never embraced wickedness. But they dont go to heaven either. They just wander around miserably, not being anywhere or anything because, because they failed to commit to anything during their lives.

From Dante, we learn the crucial truth that not bad is not the same as good. A number of other statements flow from this understanding: not false is different than true; not wrong is different than right; and not worthless is not the same as valuable. The absence of a fault is not yet a virtue.

But I dont really want to talk about Dante here. I want to talk about apologeticsthat branch of religious writing that focuses on defending or explaining religious beliefs or institutions.

There is nothing wrong with apologetics. We struggle in English because the word sounds so much like apologize, and that, in turn, usually means something like make excuses for. And to be fair to the uninitiated, religious apologetics often does sound a lot like making excuses for religious problems. Latter-day Saint apologists, when not trying to overwhelm people with adjectives and advanced degrees, often fall into the trap of trying to excuse, rather than defend or explain, difficult things.

I recently spent some time with the Mormonr Hard Questions site, one of the newer such sites in the LDS apologetics world. There is a lot to recommend their approach. It has none of the combative ethos that often characterizes LDS apologetics, it answers a lot of questions with words like probably, and sort of that demonstrate epistemic humility, and it does a great job documenting issues and explaining them with timelines and helpful infographics.

Like several other sites, Mormonr is geared towards GenZ and younger Millennialsgenerations that appear to be leaving the Church in record numbers after they 1) encounter historical problem areas on the internet; and 2) find themselves increasingly in opposition to the church on social issuesespecially LGBTQ issues. Here are two examples of such problem issues, along with some excerpts from the Mormonr response:

ISSUE #1: Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith

The history of polygamy can be uncomfortable or frustrating, and even more so when it relates to Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger, the first polygamous relationship. Did Joseph make up polygamy to justify cheating on Emma? Was there a power imbalance with Joseph being her employer and a prophet? What about that age gap?

Unfortunately, there are very few contemporary historical records on this relationship and there are no historical records from Joseph or Fanny. This makes it difficult to reconstruct the story using historical evidence and makes it tough to answer the hard questions about Joseph and Fanny in a satisfying way.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

One reasonable interpretation is that the relationship with Fanny seems to be the first attempt to start practicing polygamy, one that appears to have been fumbled by Joseph. Though Joseph might have been imperfect in implementing polygamy, we can rely on a spiritual witness that comes by study and faith on Joseph Smiths role as prophet of God.

ISSUE #2: The Church and Proposition 8 in California

For many people, this is not a topic that will have satisfying answers. With the mix of political and social issues at play, theres not really a comfortable place to land.

Did the Church overstep its bounds by getting involved in this highly charged political issue? Was the Church doing the right thing to ask its members to mobilize and vote a particular way? These are difficult questions, and they may not have clear answers.

But one question that is answerable is whether the Church can legally participate in politics and influence policy. Since the Church is a non-profit, and non-profits can participate in politics that affect their interests, the Church was within legal bounds to campaign for Prop 8.

The Church doesnt usually give direction on how to vote (though in this case, it did), but it does encourage members to be politically active. Though faithful Church members may disagree on how the Proposition 8 situation should have been handled, each should remember to respect and love those on every side of political or social discussions.

I have spent a lot of time studying rhetoric and argument, and I recognize the argument style used here. It is a very effective style for dealing with concerns that includes the following steps:

These are all important skills to use when discussing potentially divisive topics. The Mormonr site is a master class in effective, civically responsible discussion of hard questions in a way that does not increase polarization or outrage. I like this site quite a lot, and I think that it does a lot of necessary work in the Latter-day Saint ecosystem.

But I also see a major problem with this entire approach to apologetics, and it goes back to Dante: this approach is designed to turn antagonism into neutralityto convince people that Joseph Smiths relationship with a teenage girl does not completely disqualify him from being a prophet, or that it is OK to be a Latter-day Saint and disagree with the Church on things like Proposition 8.

The problem is that neutrality is not enough to accomplish the goal of keeping peopleyoung or otherwisein the Church. People do not want to identify with institutions that are just not false, not bad, and not guilty. They need to understand the positive good that an institution does and the value that being a part of it can have in their lives.

I do not stay involved in the Church because I have satisfactorily resolved all of the historical problems that I have encountered. Nor do I stay because I have come to agree with the Churchs position on social issues that are important to me. I stay because I have discovered things in the Church that offset these very real problems and make it a net positive in my life.

The young people that I know who have left the Church (and a lot of the not-young people too) did not leave ONLY because of historical problems and social issues. They left because they could find nothing of value to offset their discomfort. It requires an enormous investment of both cognitive and spiritual resources to construct a nuanced position that accounts for these problem areas and still manages to celebrate faith and spiritual identity. People will only be willing to invest this effort if they see a substantial return for doing so. Not as bad as you thought is just not enough.

This, I think, is the real problem that apologetics has to grapple with: how to defend the Church by showing how it is good and not just how certain hard questions can be sort of answered. Absolute statements that the Church is true and this is what God says are just not enough. They have never been enough. They set up an all-or-nothing proposition for which nothing is quickly becoming the default setting.

The way to deal with the problem areas is not to provide lengthy explanations to mitigate their negative impact. Everybody who affiliates with any institution involving human beingsnations, universities, corporationshas to deal with problems, usually big ones, that do not have easy solutions. We remain connected because we perceive positive value in spite of the problems. For religious apologetics to matter, they have to spend less time establishing the not badness of the Church and more time identifying and exploring its goodness.

Like Loading...

See the article here:

Apologetics that (Might) Matter - By Common Consent

New Delhi: Polygamy has entered the political discourse in the past few months owing to speculation over a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), but data shows the practice is rare in India so much so that only 1.4 per cent of married Indian women surveyed in 2019-2021 said their husbands had another wife or wives.

India has also seen a decline in instances of polygamy across religions and demographies, according to a research brief published by the Mumbai-based International Institute for Population Sciences (IIPS) in June 2022. It makes these assertions on the basis of responses gathered across multiple rounds of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS), up to the latest, NFHS-5 (2019-21).

The brief goes on to highlight that the practice of marriage to more than one spouse at a time is more prevalent among tribal-dominated districts, besides the poorest and uneducated households. The authors Harihar Sahoo, R. Nagarajan and Chaitali Mandal use NFHS-5 data to establish that incidents of polygamy are highest among members of the Scheduled Tribes (ST) in India.

Compared to the national average of 1.4 per cent (NFHS-5), the rate of polygamy was 2.4 among STs, 1.5 among SCs, 1.3 among OBCs and 1.2 among others.

Even among STs, the number has come down from 3.1 per cent in NFHS-3 (2005-06) to 2.8 per cent in NFHS-4 (2015-16) and further to 2.4 per cent in NFHS-5 (2019-21).

Although polygynous marriage is not legal in India for any community other than Muslims, its practice still continues in some sections of the society in India, reads the brief. It adds that the prevalence of polygynous marriages in India was quite low, at 1.4 per cent in 2019-21, and further declined over time.

The research brief draws on responses to a question on polygamy in the NFHS questionnaire. As part of the nationwide survey, married women were asked whether their husbands had more than one wife.

The percentage of women who responded in the affirmative declined from 1.9 in 2005-06 (NFHS-3) to 1.6 in 2015-16 (NFHS-4) and eventually to 1.4 in 2019-21 (NFHS-5).

In simpler words, in 2005-06, almost one in every 50 women admitted to being in a polygynous marriage. By 2019-21, this number dropped to one in every 70 women. The NFHS-5 also provides data for women who were married between 2015-18, and of those, not even 1 per cent were reported to be in a polygynous marriage.

Polygynous marriage was more prevalent among women who had no formal education than among those who had higher educational qualifications, reads the brief.

A polygamous relationship is one in which a person is married to two or more people at the same time, whereas a polygynous relationship refers to a man being married to two or more women at the same time.

Also Read: 82% women in India able to refuse sex to their husbands, finds govts family health survey

The brief further specifies that incidents of polygamy have dropped across followers of most religions considered, namely Hindus, Muslims, Christians and Buddhists, while witnessing a marginal increase in the case of Sikhs 0.5 in 2019-21 from 0.3 in 2005-06.

Indias Muslim personal law does leave room for polygamy. That is, a Muslim man is allowed to have four wives. However, data shows that the practice is not all that prevalent among Indian Muslims.

According to the NFHS-5 data, only about 1.9 per cent of Muslim women said their husbands had more than one wife, compared to 1.3 per cent of Hindu women who admitted to being in a polygynous marriage in 2019-21.

Since the population of Muslim women is at least four-five times lower than that of Hindu women, there is a chance that Hindu women living in polygynous marriages may outnumber Muslim women in absolute terms.

The gap was wider in 2005-06, when 2.6 per cent of Muslim women admitted to living in a polygynous relationship, compared to 1.8 per cent Hindu women.

It is important to note that this gap is also subject to regional heterogeneity.

For instance, Assam where Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma reportedly said in May last year that a Uniform Civil Code would act as protection for Muslim daughters had the widest gap between Hindu and Muslim women who admitted to being in a polygynous relationship in 2019-21. The rate of polygamy among Hindu women in Assam was about 1.8 per cent, according to NFHS-5 data, as against 3.6 per cent among Muslim women.

Other states and Union territories where this gap was wide included Odisha, West Bengal, Delhi, and Kerala.

There were also four states where the proportion of Hindu women who admitted to living in a polygynous relationship was higher than that of Muslim women.

In Telangana, this was 3 per cent in the case of Hindu women as against 2.1 per cent in the case of Muslim women. Chhattisgarh (2 per cent vs 1.6 per cent), Tamil Nadu (2 per cent vs 1.7 per cent) and Andhra Pradesh (1.9 per cent vs 1.8 per cent) were the other three states that reported a similar pattern.

According to the brief, the practice of polygamy fades with improvement in income. Among the poorest households in India, the rate of polygamy was 2.4 per cent, as against 0.5 per cent among the richest households.

In total, there were about 18 states and UTs where the prevalence of polygamy was above the national average of 1.4.

Meghalaya reported the highest figure for polygamy, with 6.1 per cent of women in the state admitting that their husbands had another wife or wives.

In Mizoram and Sikkim, where tribals make up 95 per cent and 33.8 per cent of the population respectively, the polygamy rates were 4.1 per cent and 3.9 per cent.

In Arunachal Pradesh, it was 3.7 per cent, followed by Telangana (2.9 per cent) and 2.4 per cent each in Assam, Karnataka, and Puducherry.

Goa had the lowest rate of polygamy barely 0.2 per cent, or 1 in 500 women, said their husbands had more than one wife. Joining Goa at the bottom end of the list were Haryana (0.3 per cent), Jammu and Kashmir (0.4 per cent), Gujarat (0.5 per cent), Punjab (0.5 per cent) and Rajasthan, Delhi, and Himachal Pradesh (0.6 per cent each).

The research brief also lists out 40 districts where the prevalence of polygynous marriages was high, with East Jaintia Hills district in Meghalaya reporting the highest nearly one in every five women surveyed in the district admitted to being in a polygynous marriage.

The rate of polygamy was 16.4 per cent in Arunachal Pradeshs Kra Daadi district, followed by West Jaintia Hills in Meghalaya (14.5 per cent).West Khasi Hills in Meghalaya and East Kameng in Arunachal Pradesh also reported a rate of polygamy higher than 10 per cent.

The research brief also emphasises that policy makers working on this issue must know that this practice is low and further declining in India.

Before arriving at any conclusion based on the social, economic and demographic characteristics, one has to bear in mind that the prevalence of polygyny in India is low and it is fading away, it concludes, adding that the demographic health and gender consequences of polygyny need further investigation.

(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)

Also Read: Indians are growing fatter, and the problem is biggest for wealthy women, shows NFHS data

Here is the original post:

It's not just Muslims who have multiple wives in India. But practice ... - ThePrint

The Poison of Polygamy by Anchuli Felicia King is Courtney Stewarts inaugural production in her first season as Artistic Director at La Boite Theatre. It is epic in scale, set during the Australian Gold Rush, and was inspired by true accounts and events of the period. Adapted by King, of White Pearl fame, from an earlier novel by Wong Shee Ping, the work has had a long gestation period.

A co-production with the Sydney Theatre Company (STC), it will transfer with the same cast to the Wharf Theatre in Sydney after its premiere Brisbane season.

La Boite has long been recognised as an incubator for new Australian work. Courtney Stewarts vision is to build on that, by making it Australias most diverse theatre company. She is also keen to showcase the best of Queenslands creative talents, with a number of local artists cast in this work. As Stewart is a fourth generation Chinese-Australian, a play about the Chinese diaspora, with eight actors who share her ethnicity, is clearly an ideal work to begin her tenure with the company.

The story centres on an ambitious young man from southern China, Sleep-Sick (Shan-Ree Tan), his nickname derived from his opium addiction, which is consuming him as the play opens. Deeply in debt, he leaves his long-suffering wife, Ma (Merlynn Tong) and, like many before him, journeys to the Australian goldfields to make his fortune.

Lots of adventures befall him and his associates with Act 1 feeling like a personal story of migration issues. In Act 2, however, the play takes a different turn and the intriguing title, The Poison of Polygamy, becomes clearer when Sleep-Sick meets the tantalising Tsiu Hei (Kimie Tsukakoshi). She becomes his concubine and life unravels with disastrous results that include blackmail, betrayal and murder.

Kings English language adaptation is a beautifully crafted work with an excellent use of contemporary language framed within a classical text that is at times quite poetic. Given the themes of human weakness and moral dilemmas, it is almost Shakespearean in its overarching scope as it explores what it meant, and still means, to be Chinese in Australia.

Pings novel had a strong evangelical and proselytising element that of a morality tale examining the virtues of monogamy over polygamy. It also introduced a humorous and entertaining perspective, which King brings out in the play. At nearly three hours in length, however, the work would benefit from some judicious cutting without losing any of its intent or the power of the narrative.

Moreover, the second act seems to be almost a separate play to the first, with the idea of polygamy introduced almost as an afterthought and raised only by the character of the Preacher in three separate monologues. The role of the courtesan, Tsiu Hei, who dominates the second half of the play, could be cut substantially; her text is often repetitive and adds little to the story. We understand who she is very early on.

Stewarts direction ably brings the text to life drawing finely nuanced characterisations and excellent performances from all the cast. Her attention to detail and her ability to keep the action flowing works well, as does the doubling of roles by most of the cast.

As both the Preacher and Sleep-Sick, Shan-Ree Tan is magnificent. He gives excellent fire-and-brimstone sermons as the Preacher, while his well-modulated voice belies the devious, cunning nature of his character. He also plays the narrator, appearing to analyse the story from afar, managing the change well.

As his wife, Ma, Merlynn Tong is delightful, her goodness and naivety contrasting with that of her self-absorbed husband. Kimie Tsukakoshi makes a first-rate and believable Tsiu Hei, matching the evil nature of Sleep-Sick, and even surpassing it. She plays wickedness extremely well, despite being verbose.

Sleep-Sicks three associates are all beautifully delineated. As Ching, Ray Chong Nee plays the upright loyal friend, whose hard work and skill are rewarded with a family and a reputable business. He delivers his measured lines eloquently, always keen to avoid disputes.

Gareth Yuen is Pan, the passionate, political character with a positive outlook on life who speaks most of the poetic lines with a clear attention to text. His performance as Doctor Ng, with no scruples, is also well crafted. The third character, Chan, is the most ethical of the three, wanting to do the right thing by the law and objecting to Sleep-Sicks black market trading. Silvan Rus plays him with great dignity and persuasion. He also gives a fine cameo as Mas cousin, persuading Sleep-Sick to go to Australia.

Set in the round, the production has no set to speak of. Six versatile tall red pillars are used variously as walls,arches and parts of a ship. A framed wooden bed is the sole piece of furniture, used mainly for the numerous simulated sex scenes, as the title may imply. There are few props. The smoke machine gets plenty of use, however, creating a smoky dinginess in the opium dens as well as the seascape on the ship to Australia, lending atmosphere and depth to the bare stage.

This is assisted by Ben Hughes cleverly designed lighting which, despite being often quite dark, helps move the narrative along between scenes, illuminating mood and atmosphere.

All is all, this is a mixed work with high aims and some interesting ideas that are well delivered by a good cast. The play imparts a number of confusing messages including migration and the early Chinese-Australian experience, the role of women in society (both then and perhaps now) plus a general examination of the human condition.

Through the sole role of the Preacher, monogamy versus polygamy is examined, but in a limited way. Have I saved them? asks the Preacher in his last words, and the answer would have to be a resounding and depressing no.

Read: Theatre review: Loaded, Malthouse Theatre

For this viewer at least, the most important message that resonated was turning around the myth of the law-abiding, stereotypical Chinese immigrant, while understanding that ultimately human beings are all similar and there are good and bad in all societies. If that had been offered as the key message of The Poison of Polygamy, we may have seen a very different play.

The Poison of Polygamy by Anchuli Felicia King, La Boite Theatre and Sydney Theatre Company

Based on the novel by Wong Shee PingTranslated by Ely FinchPlaywright: Anchuli Felicia KingDirector: Courtney StewartSet and Costume Designer: James LewLighting Designer: Ben HughesSound Designer: Guy WebsterComposer: Matt Hsus Obscure OrchestraChoreography: Deborah BrownCast: Ray Chong Nee, Hsin-Ju Ely, Silvan Rus, Shan-Ree Tan, Merlynn Tong, Kimie Tsukakoshi, Anna Yen, Gareth Yuen

The Poison of Polygamy was performed at La Boite Theatre at the Roundhouse, Brisbane on Thursday 11 May 2023, and will transfer to Wharf 1 Theatre, Sydney from 8 June to 15 July 2023.

The rest is here:

Performance review: The Poison of Polygamy, La Boite Theatre - ArtsHub