Texas Polygamy Case

Paul Harvey

[Bad-mood-in-the-morning post this morning: Commentors here were annoyed at the lack of discussion of the case in Texas regarding the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Memo to those in the comments section: this isn't a newspaper, we make no pretense of "covering" anything beyond what strikes our professional and sometimes personal interests in religion in American history, and perhaps most importantly, I'm busy grading a bottomless pile of student papers. I haven't followed this case and don't have anything of interest to say about it. The media's fascination strikes me as voyeurism.]

Update: this is what happens when you hit "post" before taking a deep breath. The commentors were just asking for insightful commentary here, so let me apologize to them for the little bit of pissiness this morning as evidenced above. And read above for the kind of commentary requested here.

And for those interested: Seth Perry has an excellent piece on the case; thanks to the commentor who provided the URL.

Comments

John G. Turner said…
It does seem hard to imagine that the case won't end as the Short Creek Polygamy raid in 1953 -- ultimately a black mark for the authorities.
Anonymous said…
I agree John. I don't see this turning out well for anyone involved.

Paul, I can't speak for those who left a comment about the absence of the topic here, but I will admit that I too was hoping for someone at your blog to address the issue. I'm certainly sympathetic to everyone's busy schedules and desire to post on their personal research interests, but hoped that one of the bloggers here would address it because of the generally insightful and intelligent tone and content of your blog. Because, as you point out, the media coverage has primarily been voyeuristic, I imagine those who left a comment were simply hoping for a more thoughtful approach to the FLDS situation, one that might situate it in American religious history to yield valuable insights into past precedents for this sort of church-state conflict.
Anonymous said…
I left a comment hoping for a discussion about it. I truly do apologize if I came off as "annoyed." I would characterize myself more as "interested." I was really simply hoping one of the contributors would take up the suggestion. Obviously everyone understands the end of the semester.
John G. Turner said…
If we must take it up... (more to come)
Anonymous said…
Likewise, I don't consider my comment to be motivated by annoyance, rather out of interest. I figured either John Turner or Kathryn Lofton would have written a post about it, but I understand that everyone is busy. I also understand, Prof. Harvey, that this is not a newspaper, and by referring to "coverage" I was not implying that this should be. I'm sorry that my comment annoyed you though.
Paul Harvey said…
Dear all: Sorry for being a little irritable, unnecessary on my part -- and thanks to John and K. Lofton for their posts, answering the call! I try to keep the blog fun and without obligation on anybody's part, so just overreacted a little bit to these requests -- sorry about that.
Anonymous said…
If you're going to copy someone else's work, provide credit. What's the format? Try this one out: Who, What, Where and When. List the author, the title of the author's work, the location and when the work was published. That information should pass even the toughest muster.
---------------
Dolly

Apartments In Dallas, TX
Anonymous said…
If you're going to copy someone else's work, provide credit. What's the format? Try this one out: Who, What, Where and When. List the author, the title of the author's work, the location and when the work was published. That information should pass even the toughest muster.
---------------
Dolly

Apartments In Dallas, TX