Category Archives: Polygamy

Society expects an adult to live forever and ever with one partner. However, as Tony Mochama and Elvis Ondieki found out, long-term monogamy could be one highly flawed concept.

At a tastefully decorated church or garden this weekend, one scene is sure to play out: A certain man and woman will exchange rings in front of a cheering crowd as a poker-faced church minister looks on.

The vows they will proclaim will have a hackneyed line that is often uttered without giving it the thought it deserves till death do us part.

On paper, that vow means that the elated suit-clad groom and his glittering bride have promised to stay bound to one partner for life. All their fantasies, infatuations, quirks and sexual needs are, henceforth, supposed to be addressed by the person they have chosen.

However, as the street saying goes, things are different on the ground. Society will expect the two to be faithful to each other till they depart the earth, but the way the human body is wired could push that expectation far beyond the limit of elasticity.

And questions arise: What if monogamy is a concept that humans force on themselves? What if humans were let to follow their mating instincts like other animals do?

Earlier this year, a report by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics caused a frenzied discussion online. According to the findings, the average number of sexual partners among Kenyan men was 7.4 while amongst women it was found to be 2.3.

Further, the report showed that 19 percent of women had admitted to having sex with a person who neither was their husband nor lived with them. Among men, that figure stood at 37 percent. The numbers revealed an interesting aspect of Kenyas social dynamic a lot of Kenyans are involved in multi-layered sexual or social arrangements.

So, are we forcing monogamy?

The Saturday Magazines exploration of this matter took us to people arguing for and against monogamy, historians, scholars, and religious leaders among others.

Dr Kenneth Ombongi, a senior history lecturer at the University of Nairobi, notes that it has been less than 1,000 years since men started sticking to a single partner.

From ancient times, humans, just like many other animal species, were polygamous. And in historical terms, monogamy is one of the most recent developments in human society, he said in an interview that is also available on the Nation.Africa podcast section.

Monogamy is hardly 1,000 years old, which is a very short period, historically speaking. The issues around monogamy came to the fore of human development because human beings in their natural state will want to mate with as many female species as they can. Then selfishness crept in, adds Dr Ombongi.

Nairobi-based businesswoman Kemunto Nyakundi is never ashamed of posting about her life on social media, often admitting that she is not the type that sticks to one man.

To hell with monogamy! she proclaimed when we contacted her on the subject.

Modern women are throwing monogamy out of the window. I think monogamy was placed on women in a bid to tame them, more so in the African society where monogamy is the ideal way of keeping a woman in a relationship.

Kemunto foresees a time when the stigma associated with women having multiple partners simultaneously will fade away.

Imagine getting love from different partners. Bliss! Because fresh meat spices things up. Its time men and women got open about it and allowed open relationships. That may even strengthen the relationships, she argues.

However, for polyamory to succeed, [polyamory is the practice of engaging in multiple romantic and typically sexual relationships] we have to move past insecurity and jealousy. Because its absurd for men to imagine that their women never get hit on by other men; and that if they get hit on, they should be strong and not allow emotions to take over yet on the other side, the men are hitting on several women, having gathered several side chicks, adds Kemunto who sells used books and second-hand clothes in Nairobi.

In the historical scholars view, Dr Ombongi says Christianity has a lot to do with the entrenchment of monogamy. With the introduction of modern Christianity, the so-called New Testament teaching, monogamy became a norm in Christendom or Western world, what we now call the global north. And it spread to the rest of the world, including Africa, through the Christian missions and Christian missionaries who criminalised, literally, African practices, he says.

There is also an argument that a polygamous man earns respect, and is considered a leader.

Because of how they manage the family, they are considered to be leaders; always consulted to give advice on matters affecting society. Also, it gives the man the peace of mind that he needs. You may get one wife having funny attitudes. So, as a man, you avoid her attitude by moving to the next wife. By the time you come back, shell be missing you, argues Samuel Kabora, who is unapologetically polygamous and often posts online to encourage men to have more than one spouse.

Photo credit: Pool

Jacob Aliet, the author of Unplugged Truths Our Fathers Did Not Tell Us, says that Many of our fathers were advised that the way to deal with a difficult wife is to marry another wife, and that, Bringing another woman into the hitherto monogamous union is [a sign] that another woman thinks that you are valuable.

The counter-argument from women against the notion that polygamy helps a man assert his power is that it would only be fair if women are also allowed to freely enter multiple relationships like men are.

In the modern world, looking at how Gen Zs are handling relationships and marriages, women are free mentally, emotionally, and sexually to explore whatever desires they have. Its becoming an open world where people are willing to explore other types of relationships likethrouple,ora triad, where youre having maybe three people in a relationship, says Josephine Njoroge.The modern-day woman has become more self-aware.

But in reality, despite the sexual liberalisation of younger women, Kemunto argues that only men are still allowed to have multiple partners, publicly.

Maybe, rigid exclusivity is not supposed to be a woman's nature. Perhaps it was just a myth we grew up with. And why should the part be played by women alone when society allows men to have as many women? Thats why a woman is always shamed more than a man when caught cheating, she says. Women are now beating men in their own game. And they (men) are angry about it.

But it is not a game on who is doing it best, male or female.

Studies have found polygamy was common in many societies. According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, 84.9 percent of the 1,231 cultures are classified as polygamous.

Societies, both from the dimension of natural history and social history, have been polygamous. However, the introduction of monogamy was necessitated by what one could see as some kind of selfishness on the part of the male species to protect their offspring, in a sense. But you cannot exclude the influence of New Testament Christianity. Because in the Old Testament, you know, Solomon broke both the Christian and Islamic laws of polygamy. He had only a thousand of them, argues Dr Ombongi.

Abdulkarim Omar, a Muslim scholar, adds that originally in the Koran, polygamy was allowed mostly to take care of war widows and their children in societies where wars were common, killing many men and leading to far more women than men in these arid spaces.

Quoting from Hazrat Mirza Bashir Ahmads The Life and Character of the Seal and Prophets, Omar gives examples of where a man may move from monogamy and go on to marry as many as four women in his lifetime.

He may first marry for protection against physical, moral, and spiritual ailments, associated with promiscuity and the weakness of the flesh. Then he finds his first wife is barren and marries a second woman for the continuation of human life. He may then fall in love with a third woman and marry her out of the growth of the relationship and (com)passion. Lastly, in his sunset years, he could marry again for companionship and peace of mind.

Outside of the practice of polygamy, most Kenyans still struggle with maintaining a lifelong sexually exclusive relationship with just one partner.

So, why does monogamy prove difficult for many people? David P. Barash, the author of the book ''Out of Eden'', argues that monogamy is unnatural. That it is a socially constructed concept that is not universal to all human societies but rather is enforced by certain societies and so has become a norm.

Does the monogamy struggle cut across races and countries?

Finn Sue Seppanen, who has lived for over a decade in Kenya, notes that, Many African men are players, including those with wedding rings on their fingers, and that they are not shy about being players.

She says that in Finland, where sexual liberation (for both sexes) is acceptable, Once people are married, it is not socially acceptable to be seen running around with others as seems to be the case here in Kenya.

Also, Finns tend to get into their first marriages quite late age 35 for men, and 32 for women so they have somewhat settled by then, and although last year had the lowest marriage rate in decades (only 20,000 Finns tied the knot), 75 per cent were married for the first time, 20 per cent were contracting a second marriage, and five per cent doing a third wedding. The Finnish divorce rate is 51 percent, three times higher than Kenyas at 17 percent.

Better to just leave and be a serial polygamist than a serial cheat, says Sue.

Adams ribs in Eve, Faith, Mercy, Joy

Interestingly, in Kenya, infidelity comes a distant second to financial issues as a reason for divorce.

Alec Kongo, a pastor at the New Deliverance Church in Ngong, Nairobi, argues that if God wanted man to be polygamous, He would have removed all of Adams ribs and made him not just Eve but also Faith, Mercy and Joy to be his multiple wives.

Many people still struggle with maintaining a lifelong sexually exclusive relationship with just one partner.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

For psychologists, they base their monogamy argument on the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freuds theory.

Eve Waruingi, a mental health specialist and counselling psychologist, uses classic Sigmund Freud theories in her case against monogamy.

In Freuds Primeval Patriarchy Theory, human beings are no different from wild horses and gorillas in the wild, with alpha males having all the females, and chasing out or castrating their sons and male rivals. That is how many human societies ended up with eunuchs in the polygamous harems of the alphas. But then there were patricides and revolts. In particular, incest and polygamy became taboo, especially in the West. Sigmund Freud argues that by going against his polygamous nature, man gets a lot of psychological neuroses.

In other words, Eve adds with a smile, monogamy is at the root of most of our psychological disturbances in our societies. It is not natural at all.

Mammals are not big on monogamy. In less than 10 percent of species, it is common to have individuals who mate exclusively. Scientists estimate that three to five per cent of all mammals practice some form of monogamy. Among primates, just 29 per cent are monogamous.

The bald eagle, the creepy black vulture and the grey wolf are among these monogamous few. Macaroni penguins do a love dance when they see their partners, seahorses are monogamous (but only because the females are violently jealous of their partners) and male barn owls even court their life partners by bringing them gifts of dead mice. The term love birds is derived from love swans, who curve their necks together in a love heart shape as they touch beaks, and while the European beaver is monogamous, its North American cousin sees other beavers.

However, in the times we live in, and because vectors like the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the human papillomavirus (HPV) are spread through sex, monogamy might have come to humans out of the desire to avoid diseases.

If you live in a world where we have numerous sexually transmitted diseases or conditions, then probably one will argue that limiting oneself to one female puts you in a better state to prevent yourself from acquiring and spreading some of these conditions, argues Dr Ombongi.

Visit link:

Is it time to rethink monogamy? | Nation - Nation

Bernice Saroni has absolved herself from claims she wracked Samidoh's marriage by aiding Edday Nderitu's relocation to the US.

Edday moved to the US with all her children in early May 2023. Bernice Saroni hosted her with the kids at her house in Boston, Massachusetts for months until she relocated to her own house.

Speaking during a recent interview with Plug TV, Bernice allayed claims that she had a hand in breaking up Samidoh's marriage to Edday by aiding her 'escape' to the US.

"There are speculations that you are probably the main reason why she left her husband Samidoh?" Bernice was asked.

"Kwani Samidoh was dating Bernice ama Karen Nyamu?" She rudely dismissed the speculations.

"Venye alienda uku tu akili ikachange akasema she doesn't want to come back (when she got to the US she changed her mind and said she didn't want to come back)," the interviewer posed.

"Hio swali ebu endeni mukaulize Karen Nyamu coz ye ndo side chick wa Samidoh not me. Ata sioni Bernice na Karen mahali inakaribiana (that question go and ask Karen Nyamu because she is Samidoh's side chick not me. I don't see where Bernice and Karen are related)," Bernice Saroni answered.

The mother of four further insisted that her name shouldn't be dragged into Samidoh and Edday's breakup, shifting the blame to Karen Nyamu.

"First of all I wanna make this clear to all Kenyans. When asking me like me ndo nilitoa Edith huku, I am not Karen Nyamu. Kama Edith alitoka huku akaenda US or whatever decision she made I am not responsible for that. So they have to deal with Karen Nyamu, not Bernice Saroni. People should keep me out of that," Bernice stated.

"Bernice Saroni you are close to Samidoh, have you tried to convince him to get back together with his wife Edday Nderitu?" The interviewer posed.

"No that's not my story and I don't wanna talk about that," she said.

Bernice Saroni additionally noted that Edday was at peace in the US and that she talks to her every day.

"Of course, I support Edday, I am a woman I support a fellow woman. I talk to her every day she is my sister. She is happy, she is at peace you can see her on Facebook," Bernice said.

Bernice, who walked out of her marriage because of her ex-husband's infidelity, stressed that she opposes polygamy in its entirety.

"I don't believe in polygamy because the moment your partner or your husband involves another person he doesn't love you. Emotionally you guys are disconnected coz there is something that he has lacked from you that's why he is going to look for someone else. And where there's number two there will always be number three. When you ask number two if she wants number three to come they never agree so you always find it's always number one who suffers," Bernice explained.

Two months after she moved to the US, Edday Nderitu insisted that she would not share her husband with Karen Nyamu.

In a Facebook post on July 22, 2023, Samidoh's now estranged wife clarified that she was not in a polygamous marriage, noting that she left her husband to 'whoever needed him more'.

"Lemmie clarify few things that were shared online and not accurate I am not in any polygamous marriage as stated I left the husband for whoever needed him more," Edday's statement on Facebook read in part.

Read more here:

Karen Nyamu should answer why Edday relocated to US not me ... - K24 TV

Following the closing Mass of the first session of the Synod on Synodality in Rome this October, Cardinal Blase Cupich, the archbishop of Chicago, spoke with Americas Vatican correspondent about his experience of the meeting and the synods synthesis document, published Oct. 29.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Gerard OConnell: What is your overall take on the synthesis document?

Cardinal Cupich: The document is not as important as the experience that we had. I think the document tries to convey that experience. And it does a good job. But my hope would be that we are able to take that experience back home and share it with our people because that really is what the synod is about. Its a new way of being church.

At the same time, the document does call for a codification of synods in the future [being] done along these lines, rather than going back to what we did before. Thats a very important statement, made loud and clear in this document.

We were aware that there are people in the life of the church and in synod hall who had their doubts about synodality itself as a model for church life. There were calls to develop [that model], theologically, so that were clear about this. But there was no doubt whatsoever that this is not only a new way that the church is going to function, but, in fact, [that it is] tapping into the roots of our tradition. The church has been synodal from the very beginning. What were doing is recapturing something that can serve us well in this moment.

GO: You participated in past synods. How has the fact that you have non-bishops voting changed things?

Instead of having bishops say, This is what our people are saying, in the old synods, which we tried to do our best to do, we actually had people there. Young people, elderly people, religious men and women, who, in fact, were on the ground in pastoral ministry, who gave voice in ways that were fresh, were challenging, and in ways that maybe a bishop could not say before.

There was an actual paragraph that was passed overwhelmingly about non-bishops being a part of this: Does it in some way take away from the understanding that its a Synod of Bishops? And there was a resounding acceptance that non-bishops should be a part of it because its not a threat. It allows the bishops to have that immediate interaction with the voice of the whole church.

Thats important. It was pointed out to me that if you look at the votes and you strip away all of the non-bishops who were a part of the synod, the propositions still pass by 75 percent.

GO: But even in this document, they talk about the need to clarify whether this is a Synod of Bishops or an assembly of bishops. Some people raised objections.

They did, but I think that there were some propositions that said very clearly that non-bishops should be a part of [the process] going forward in the future.

GO: So you see no going back.

I dont think theres a need to go back. We have made some real progress here, and the bishops enjoyed having lay people there. It wasnt [simply] tolerating it. Maybe there were some voices that had difficulties with it because they wanted it to be all bishops [but] very few. By and large, the bishops interacted really well with lay people at the tables.

GO: One of the big developments in this document is the role of women in the church.

Were talking about a real paradigm shift here. We recognize the fact that women, de facto, carry the life of the church, on so many levels, to make it operational on a day-to-day basis. But I think its more than recognizing that; its dealing also with how you include women in important decision making, how you place them within the life of the community so that their leadership is regarded, respected and protected.

[The document] talks about different ministries that might be created to do that. I know that there was a lot of discussion about women deacons, and that was not resolved here. But it was very clear that the assembly called for a study and hopefully that we would have the results by the next [synod meeting]. I imagine its going to be taken up again.

But its not only about [making] everything about women deacons. There has to be another way in which we respect that women bring a particular gift to the life of the church, that if absent, impoverishes the church. How do we take advantage of their gifts and charisms? Thats an agenda thats not complete yet.

GO: From what Ive heard, there was a real overwhelming feeling among the participants in the synod that the women have to be recognized and to have spaces open for them in decision-making positions of responsibility. They mentioned the example of the pope appointing women to the Roman Curia.

People are delighted with that. There is a real sense of importance of that. Many bishops in different parts of the world said that women are running communities where there are not enough priests. They recognize that in many [countries] of the Southern Hemisphere women have a major role already. How is it, though, that theyre not being recognized as such?

Looking at the question of being a pastor of a parish, which seems to link the one who presides at the Eucharist with actual leadership: Is that a connection that is absolutely necessary? Or can there be a leader of a community who is not the presider at the Eucharist but still has the same responsibility, authority and role within the community as a pastor would have?

GO: So do you foresee that they may recognize new roles, new ministries for women?

There could be, but I would say, talking to some bishops, they tell me already that they have women serving as pastors, who are serving as the head of communities because they dont have enough priests. They dont have the title, however. How do we officially recognize that, rather than seeing it as kind of an exception? I think we have to ask the question: Are these roles for lay people in the life of the community today just a matter of temporarily substituting [them because of] the shortage of priests? Or is there something about their baptism that, in fact, allows them to be able to have those roles not just in a temporary way, but as really a part of the ministry that belongs to their baptism?

GO: I was struck by the focus on baptism in this document and on the dignity and equality that comes from baptism.

Go back to the reflection that Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., gave on authority. He said, We have to start with the premise [that] everybody has authority by their baptism. Its a different kind of authority. But everybody has authority. So its not a matter of somebodys authority being jeopardized. Its not a zero-sum game.

If youre co-responsible, you also have co-authority. You cant separate those two. So how do we recognize the innate authority, the baptismal of authority of the laity in such a way that contributes to the building up of the life of the community? That was a very important reflection that he gave us; it turned heads. People talked about that one. They had never heard before that everybody has authority, a different kind of authority. Because you cant say were all co-responsible if you dont recognize that.

GO: One of the other big issues was the question of formation. The pope gave a very powerful intervention on formation. And formation comes out in many places in this document.

Its making sure that people who are called upon in the life of the church, to offer service to our ministry, that we invest in them; we dont take advantage of their goodwill and generosity and put them in a place without providing them with the resources in order to flourish in that position. Its not just a matter of people who are efficient and accomplish things. But how do they reflect upon it as part of their living out their baptism? Thats important.

There was one other thing that shouldnt be missed in the formation: The new ratio fundamentalis for seminaries does not allow for women to be involved as formators. But the document we passed clearly stated that women should be involved, not just in teaching, but also in formation work. There might be an open discussion about what that means.

GO: There was a lot of discussion about bishops in the synod. The document included a proposal for looking for ways to evaluate a bishops performance, to relook at the criteria for candidates for bishops, to ask if the role of the Metropolitan should be revisited.

Those questions have not been raised before. You know, every organization that has credibility has some sort of an evaluative tool, a performance review of people. We do it, many dioceses now do it, with the priests; we do it with the laypeople and so on. So I think I would welcome that. This is not to be critical of the bishop. But like any performance review, its done in such a way that allows the individual to grow in the work that theyre doing, because you can encourage things that are going well and also address areas of concern. This is a mature way of assisting an individual to grow within their own ministry and service.

They also talked about the need for greater participation in the selection of bishops. Ive always been for that. There should be broad and wide consultation. But [it should include] people who really know the individual, too. You cant just cast a wide net out there. It does put a lot of pressure on the nuncios to be able to do some real serious investigation of where this individual that is being considered has served and making sure that they get the right list.

GO: So you get input from laypeople?

Yes, and religious women and priests, not just bishops. Many times in the past, it used to be that the bishops were the only ones who were asked about these things. It was interesting, too, that there was a call for evaluating nuncios.

Thats a broader question with regard to the Holy See. A lot has been done with regard to how the various dicasteries can perform better. There have been some studies of dicasteries in the past. So if theyre going to do that for nuncios, I think there should be performance reviews as well here in the Vatican. For those who lead major congregations.

GO: Is that in the document as well?

No. I just think its best practice. I dont know why you wouldnt do it. I think it sets a standard by which you use [a] human resource standard that is in the long run much better for an organization.

GO: This document talks about the churchs response to the abuse crisis. How do you read what is in the document on this?

First of all, it was on the mind of peoplethat we cant shove this under the rug and that we have to hold people accountable. There have to be measures by which we evaluate how were doing with safeguarding. But in all of the various references to this particular topic, I was pleased that, for the most part, it began by putting the child in the middle of the room and making the safety of the child the priority. Ive always said, if you start with putting the child in middle of a room, you get it right, no matter what the question is. Thats present in this document.

GO: There was a section on truth and love where the document talks about controversial issues and how to address them. In that section, the term L.G.B.T. doesnt specifically appear. What do you see [that] is addressing that issue? Because it was discussed a lot in the synod.

Yes, it was. And its reflected in terms of how people identify their sexuality. And it was broader than the letters of L.G.B.T.Q. It also dealt with people who are in their second marriage.

What was being conveyed in the synod discussions and what the document tried to pick up was, first of all, that we should not start just with condemnations. [We should] also get to know people and realize that in many discussions, we dont know a whole lot. We have to really be careful about going full forward and pronouncing on things because we believe that theres a violation of Gods law or a church protocol. We really have to accompany people; nobody should feel excluded.

It was interesting that when [the document] dealt with the question of ecumenism, it made an interesting distinction between ecclesial communion and sacramental communion, in which you have people who are of a different Christian faith tradition, who might not have full ecclesial communion, but [it asks]: Is there a possibility to reimagine what sacramental communion means? Is there an analogy that can be used with regard to people who might not be in full and complete ecclesial union because of some aspect of their life, and sacramental communion? Much along the lines of what the pope says: that the Eucharist is not a reward but a source of healing. I am not sure how to unpack all of that.

But I wonder whether or not there is an analogyand analogies are not similitudes where theyre exactly the same. Because to talk about people who are in different Christian faith traditions and people who are in irregular life situations and Catholic surely are two different things.

But once you begin to introduce a distinction between ecclesial and sacramental communion, it might provide some insight into how to approach these issues in terms of including people.

GO: Were you surprised that there was less explicit reference to L.G.B.T. issues in the document?

Yes. Only because there was, at least in the groups that I was in, quite a bit of reference to that. People spoke of their experiences. There were some very compelling testimonies on the part of people about that in terms of their families. That was was not fully reflected in the document.

That doesnt mean were not going to return to it next year. I think thats going to happen.

I would say this, [in regard to] the discussions about the L.G.B.T.Q. community: There was greater discussion about that than polygamy. And polygamy was named in the document. And it was not a universal problem. And an issue like the gay and lesbian community would be.

But one thing that was in the same paragraph [on sexuality and identity] was that the church has the responsibility to defend the human dignity of everybody. And thats a powerful message, particularly in some countries, where, in fact, gay and lesbian people are prosecuted, even put to death, I think it was a clarion call to all of the church, that we cannot tolerate that kind of violence against people. And we have to defend human dignity.

GO: Now this document is going back to the dioceses. It should be going to your bishops conference in November. Will it?

I believe that what our bishops conference is going to do is commit a good amount of time to talk about this but also to hear the voices, not just of the bishops, but some of the other people who were there.

The most important thing we have to communicate are not the various issues but the experience that we have had. I have said before that the bishops of the Second Vatican Council only brought back the decisions. They never shared with us the experience or replicated it. I think we have an opportunity now to replicate the experience weve had here in the next 11 months, then to come back and be able to share what it is that the people of God had said to us when they have experienced a synodal process the way we did?

I think thats the challenge before us. And in fact, I think that the document moves in that direction. That very beautiful statement at the end is a call to action. And I think thats something Im going to take seriously in my own diocese.

Link:

Cardinal Cupich on the synod, women deacons, giving bishops job ... - America: The Jesuit Review

Dont yuck our yum, Meri.

Its time for another episode of Sister Wives, a show where the husband is perpetually spiraling, his main gal is forever playing the victim, timelines seemingly do not exist and the majority of the children have no contact with their father.

or as we like to call it, our comfort show.

This episode kicks off at Christines house in Utah with a pregnancy announcement from Mykelti and Tony, and another reminder of how much this timeline is seriously lagging. Mykelti tells her sister Ysabel that she and her Wish.com Aquaman husband have spawned again and the couple also spring the news on Christine that theyre expecting twins.

Mykelti says she wasnt surprised to find out she was expecting twins, and even tells her mom it makes sense, as shes been eating everything during her pregnancy not to be outdone by baby Avalon, who is unabashedly double-fisting bagels throughout this entire announcement.

Next we head over to Meris B&B in Utah for a much more somber announcement, though one we all knew was coming.

Well, everyone except Meri, apparently.

Meri tells viewers that it was recently her and Kodys 32nd wedding anniversary and while she and Kody have gone out to celebrate the occasion in recent years, its almost been more obligatory than anything else.

Still, Meri has truly savored that crumb of human decency she received once a year from her spouse, so when this years anniversary rolled around, she was bummed when Kody didnt even bother to shoot her a text.

Meri, being the Rice-Krispies-treat-making masochist that she is, says she decided to take matters into her own hands and call Kody herself. She even suggested the two of them go on a drive to celebrate the trash heap that is their marital union.

Bricks. Bricks for damn brains, this one. Im tellin you

Meri is sad (and we are cringing) when Kody tells her that has to check with Robyn, as he was watching her their kids at the time.

Just when we think our second-hand embarrassment for Meri has reached an all-time high, Kody reveals to viewers that he wasnt actually busy with The Chosen 5 (Dayton, Princess Pierced Ears, Sobyn Jr., Sol and the One With the Pacifier), he just needed an excuse to get out of spending time with ol Mer.

Much to our- and definitely to Meris- surprise, Kody is granted permission from the Head of Household loyal wife and begrudgingly offers to take Meri out to dinner. Now, we WOULD bet the expired My Sisterwifes Closet gift card weve been hanging onto all these years that Kodys lame ass took Meri to Salsa Brava to mark their special occasion, but unfortunately well never know, as the camera crew wasnt invited along for this excursion. (Ten bucks he whipped the car through the McDonalds drive-thru and devoured his Big Mac faster than any human ever has before.)

Luckily, Meri is contractually obligated to give viewers a rundown of her terrible, horrible, no good, very bad anniversary dinner, which she reveals included a major slip of the tongue, courtesy of Kody.

At one point he made some reference to faking relationships or something like that and I was like, What do you mean, faking? Meri recalls. And we were sitting across the table from each other and he kinda gestured, like, with his fingers, you know, like, between the two of us.

Meri says she pressed Kody on his comment, insisting to him that she wasnt faking anything, to which Kody told her he didnt know why she even bothered calling him to say happy anniversary in the first place.

Ouch. (Normally I would feel bad for Meri, but, to be fair, Kody has made it extremely clear that he has no interest in Meri and that he hopes she will stay up in her bell-tower except for the rare occasion she brings him cereal-filled dessert treats. And make no mistake it really, really pains me to take Kodys side on anything. Butbricks, I tell ya!)

Meri says Kody also pointed out that they arent a married couple, before correcting himself to say they arent living as a married couple. Though Meri has had a front-row seat to the s**t show that has been her marriage to Kody for years, she claims she only realized in that moment how Kody really fills feels about their union.

Kody goes on to tell viewers that right before his and Meris 25th wedding anniversary, the two of them were in a really bad place and counseling just wasnt fixing things. He also mentions that around this time, Meri asked him to stop staying over at her MLM-funded mini-mansion, but says he was convinced- allegedly by his other wives- that maybe he should keep trying.

Despite all of his effort, Kody says he eventually realized there was just no salvaging his and Meris relationship, and even Meri admits that she asked Kody for a break around that time. Unbeknownst to her, however, that break ultimately turned into more of an amputation.

Still, Meri insists she never kicked Kody out of her home, nor did she despite what Kody claims pack up his bedazzled Bret Michaels Collection jeans, visors and hoards of L.A. Looks hair gel and relegate them to the garage, la Christine.

I didnt tell him to never come back, she says. I didnt tell him that I didnt wanna see him again. I never kicked him out.

As Meri continues to regale viewers on her romance-free night with Kody, she reveals that Kody (finally) told her he has no desire to have a relationship with her.

FINALLY? UM.he has literally been saying that for years. Even back in the Wetbar Days, he was making it clear he had no interest in sexing up sad sack Meri.

He said, Dont you understand, Meri? This is never going to happen. Your life is not one that I wanna insert myself into, she recalls.

Meri admits how painful it was to hear Kody say aloud what has been blatantly obvious to seemingly everyone but her for years, claiming Kody has never said anything along those lines to her, like, ever.

UM!?!

Meri adds that Kody promised to love her to infinity and beyond, and that she is heartbroken that his Buzz Lightyear-esque declaration of affection now means nothing to him.

Next we head back to Christines, where she is still tweaking out over the twinnouncement. Mykelti tells her mom and sibs that because twin births are more high risk, shes been advised to have the Kody GrandSpawns in a hospital, instead of on the floor of her cluttered office (or wherever the hell she was when she had her first kid.)

Viewers are then subjected treated to a flashback of Mykeltis home birth with Avalon, which, as you may recall, featured a boldly-positioned Christine, sibling spectators, a camera crew, mini-fridge and an alarming number of plastic water bottles.

Christine says Tony was not down with the home birth situation and upon Avalons arrival, he insisted to Mykelti that they never go that route again. Christine assures viewers that although Mykeltis home birth was fine, she supports the couple no matter what they decide to do- especially when she learns that they will be using the same doctor that delivered Truely in 2010.

While Christine had a hospital delivery for baby No. 6, she touts that she popped out her five oldest plyglets from the comfort of her home with no issues. And, because producers are seemingly leaving most of the good stuff on the cutting room floor this season and are instead, force-feeding us Kodys Christmas crepes flashbacks, we get to relive Robyns home birth of Solomon, and hear Maddie scream in agony as Axel simultaneously enters the worldand Janelles bedroom.

Christine tells viewers she highly recommends home births, as do many plural families, because they prevent things from getting complicated when it comes to filling out birth certificates and whatnot.

Theres a whole big fear mentality about hospitals in the polygamous culture, she explains. And so, I think because of that, my kids just always think theres, like, a little bit of fear associated with the hospital, still.

We then cut to Janelle, who tells viewers that unlike Christine, shes fearless AF when it comes to birthing babies and the medical system in general, noting that she didnt grow up in polygamy, so she never had to worry about skirting the law, etc. She also says that Kodys name is on all six of her childrens birth certificates, proving once and for all that anyone can be a father, but not everyone can be a dad.

Christine acknowledges that there is a big pressure on Mykelti, being that shes basically playing both sides of the fence the bridge between her/Jenelle and Kody/Robyn, but says its awesome that her daughter has love for, and is supported by, both parties.

Speaking of parties, later on we head to Kody and Robyns home where we get a rare glimpseinside at all the Amazon boxes.Mr. & Mrs. Monogamy and The Chosen 5 have so graciously invited Ysabel and Truely over to celebrate Truelys upcoming 12th birthday.

Robyn pretends to get emotional over the fact that little Truely will soon be a teenager (umm, in a year), only to then reveal the real reason this afterthought of a party means so much to her: she married Kody shortly after Truelys birth, therefore Truely has no memories that dont include Robyn, Robyns kids or Robyns historically tragic eyebrows.

Not Robyn somehow managing to make a kids birthday party all about her I dont believe it!

While Truely is more-than-happy to collect some gifts from her part-time dad and his wife, Ysabel is less enthused to be along for the visit, and rightfully so. Christine reminds viewers that Ysabel lives in North Carolina with Maddie and Caleb and is fully content doing her own thing far, far away from The Kody Brown Family BS.

Kody admits there is distance between him and nearly all of some of his kids, as well as some distrust. He says while Truely seems perfectly fine, Ysabel seems to be uncomfortable a lot of the times.

Ysabel- whose dad once suggested that she travel across the country alone in the middle of a pandemic to undergo major back surgery- acknowledges that her relationship with Kody has never been great and says its only gotten more rocky since her parents divorced. Kody echoes this statement, while also completely minimizing the situation, claiming there seems to be a mild strain between him and some of his kids.

He then blames this so-called mild strain on the family shutting down the Polygamist Barbie Dreamhouse plan he proposed years ago.

Kody snidely remarks that he may have expected too much from his family and that maybe his kids would have been better off had they lived in separate homes (with their respective moms) and been raised as cousins.

Ummconsidering that Robyn was formerly married to Christines first cousin who also happened to be Kodys third cousin, this was an odd statement for him to make. Dare we say, even more odd than his decision to sport permed ringlets at the age of 50

Viewers are then reminded of the cringe-inducing Kody Brown Family mission statement Kody and the wives spent entirely too many hours drafting years ago, as well as the 2014 family commitment ceremony, where the wives memorably rocked dresses ugly enough to make a pair of Meris patterned MLM leggings actually look appealing.

After Kody tells viewers hes trying to redefine his life, the topic of religion comes up at Truelys birthday, presumably after Robyn noticed Truelys party T-shirt. Ysabel tells Robyn and Kody that shes found a church she likes in North Carolina, to which Kody tells viewers hed almost be too embarrassed to attend church in Utah due to the struggles his family has had.

Kody says his family hasnt established a religious connection in Flagstaff, nor did they have one in Las Vegas, save for the living room sermons he and the wives used to guilt the kids into sitting through once or twice a year.

Makeshift/no place of worship aside, Kody tells viewers hes always been a man of faith, but has struggled due to the whole #PlygLife sitch.

At this point in the episode, a producer off-camera randomly asks Kody if hes heard from his daughter Maddie recently, to which Kody admits that Maddie stopped reaching out to him a while ago. Kody is absolutely perplexed as to why his relationship with this particular spawn went to hell, but fortunately, Janelle is there to saw Kody the hell down clear things up.

Maddie doesnt call him because of his behavior lately, Janelle says. Shes like, I dont know what to do with him. I dont know who this guy is.

Remember, Maddie and Kody once had a really great relationship. Not only was Kody completely enamored with Maddies husband Caleb, but he also performed the couples wedding ceremony.

After a few more minutes of Kody rambling about (and taking no responsibility for) his deteriorating family, Janelle tells viewers that her kids pretty much stopped reaching out to Kody once Kody admitted he only cared about his minor children.

We then cut to Kody, who says he only told his kids that his obligation as their parent shifts once they become adults.

Janelle says Kody is getting exactly what he puts into the relationships with his kids, which is a really nice way of saying that Kody is a trash excuse of a father who is getting exactly what he deserves.

Janelle then starts discussing the relationships in her own life, specifically those with her sister wives, both past and present. Janelle says she and Robyn were always great team players, but they never connected on a friend level; and as for Meri, she admits the two of them always had personality differences. Janelle says she has no reason to seek out either of Kodys remaining groupies and is perfectly content kicking it with Christine and their respective kids. Oh, and her garden.

Janelle says shed like to one day build a greenhouse on Coyote Pass, assuming Kody and Robyn dont drop the ball and ultimately lose the property. Kody says not only is he planning to pay off Coyote Pass, but he and Robyn still intend to build there.

Sure, Jan..

Back in Utah, Christine- with help from Ysabel, Aspyn, Mitch and Paedon- tries to right her ex-husbands wrongs by properly teaching Truely how to ride a bicycle. Christine reminds viewers that Kody completely botched what should have been a sweet father-daughter moment years ago, thus rendering 12-year-old Truely unable to whip it throughout the neighborhood on two wheels like the badass she is.

While Truely isnt able to master bike riding skills after Day 1, the experience certainly goes better than her attempt to learn from Kody seven years earlier, so Christine chalks the day up as a win.

Because this show is incapable of ending an episode on a positive note, we close things out with a final check-in with a Meri as she continues to talk about the good old days- aka the days when Kody would still answer her phone calls.

Meri says at the beginning of her marriage, shed sometimes question if Kody would be able to love her forever as he promised, at which point Kody would reassure her that their love was the rill dill. Thirty years, three sister wives, 18 kids and one catfishing scandal later, Meri says Kody finally told her on their anniversary dinner date from hell that he never really loved her at all, he was only trying to convince himself that he did.

Geez, Kody.

Meri says Kodys comments are even more ridiculous than his dance moves, and claims anyone who knew them as a couple back in the day would say the same.

While kicking Kody to the curb where he belongs seems like the logical move, Meri reminds viewers that in the Mormon religion, their union is (or was supposed to be) an eternal covenant.

I feel like hes like, Well, Im just not interested. You can stick if you want. Meri says. But Im like, why would I want to do that eternally? Be with someone who really just has changed his mind about me.

Meri says Kody, being the gracious man he is, extended an invite to her to visit him and Robyn and the kids whenever, (after first giving them 2-3 days notice, of course) which she plans to do, given that her circle is dwindling by the minute.

Meri also reveals that Kody tried to put the kibosh on her opening up about their struggles, claiming he already receives too much criticism from the public. Meri, who mustve stumbled across a sliver of backbone while clearing out that carriage house at the B&B, says shes sick of hiding the truth and has a right to tell the world just how much Kody sucks.

(We hate to break it to you, Meri, but just like the time you revealed the elevator to the family at your old Flagstaff rental, youre not telling anyone anything they didnt already know.)

Just when we think we might be entering the How Meri Got Her Groove Back era of this series, Meri says that parting ways with Kodilocks doesnt sit well with her values.

I didnt marry Kody and make this eternal covenant just to be like, Hmm, its not working for us, I think Ill peace out, she says. And right now, I dont know what to do about it.

Thats all for this episode of Sister Wives!

To catch up on more of The Ashleys Sister Wives recaps, click here!

RELATED STORY: Sister Wives Star Gwendlyn Brown Says Her Mom Christine Told Her, Im Sorry Your Dad Doesnt Love You During Christines Divorce From Kody

(Photos: TLC)

Original post:

'Sister Wives' Season 18 Episode 11 Recap: A Cringey Anniversary ... - The Ashley's Reality Roundup

(Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Angel Moroni atop The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Bountiful Temple, Dec. 10, 2022.

By Maria van Lent | The Public Forum

| Oct. 25, 2023, 12:00 p.m.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I also, like James Huntsman, do not agree with the doctrine of polygamy. In 1828 in Doctrine and Covenants in a revelation by Joseph Smith it says that Gods paths are straight and not crooked and that He never does vary from that which He hath said.

In 1830, and still today, in the Book of Mormon God says that the many wives and concubines of David and Solomon were an abomination before Him, and that one man should have only one wife, to not repeat the sins of old times.

In 1843 after Joseph Smiths secret polygamous lifestyle of the last 12 years was exposed in the newspaper The Expositor with an advice for him to repent, he ordered the new press to be completely destroyed and then he explained that he once had a revelation where God said that having many wives was now a requirement for the eternities.

So this abomination had now become an eternal law.

It became an everlasting covenant that all who did not abide by this law would be damned saith the Lord God, and all women who would not abide by this law including Josephs wife, Emma would be destroyed by God himself. On top of this, God contradicts himself by saying that He had given all those many wives and concubines to David and Solomon and others! (Doctrine and Covenants 132)

Sorry, I cannot accept this, and I dont feel at all the love of Jesus Christ in this. He who died for the sins of all people.

Maria van Lent, Woods Cross

Submit a letter to the editor

See the rest here:

Letter: Like James Huntsman, I cannot accept the doctrine of polygamy - Salt Lake Tribune

A small vacant lot at 1600 North and State Street in Orem, Utah, has garnered attention due to its historical significance. Eva Carlotta Andersson, a pioneer woman from Sweden who lived in the area roughly 130 years ago, lost two infants and buried them on this property.

Eva Carlotta Andersson was born in Sweden in 1851 and immigrated to Utah after meeting missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She kept a detailed journal of her journey from Sweden to Utah and eventually settled in Orem as a second wife, facing legal persecution against polygamy. Due to the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, she had to live secretly to avoid persecution.

Andersson gave birth to two children in Orem, both of whom died shortly after birth and were buried on the property. Her story came to light when Becca Driggs, a BYU student, discovered it while researching Scandinavian women who helped settle Utah.

The Orem City Council is working on a resolution to support this initiative, which has gained the support of community members. The project aims to celebrate the strength of women, connect individuals through shared experiences, and validate the importance of womens stories.

Council member LaNae Millett told KSL, The minute I heard it, I knew it was a good thing and we are all in championing this cause for this women and childrens memorial, Millett said. Our city council is working on a resolution to put forth to show our support for this.

As a woman, Ive experienced some of these hardships that this Swedish woman did, Millett said. To me, I think it connects us as women, it shows our strength as women, and it gives women a place to really vocalize how they feel and how theyve come through some of these hardships to really hear and connect with other women in that arena.

Read the original here:

Orem's Pioneer History Comes to Life City of Orem - City of Orem

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