Category Archives: Polygamy

NASHVILLE Once in the bluest of blue moons, the zeitgeist produces a cultural phenomenon so bizarre and so universally discussed as to be nearly inescapable. This spring, in the spirit of pet rocks, mood rings and streaking, Netflix launched Tiger King, a documentary series that landed online at the very moment a pandemic moved our lives online, too.

A show about a murderous feud between the owner of a roadside zoo and a media-savvy animal rights advocate sounded promising to me. There are more tigers in captivity in the United States than there are in the wild, and a huge percentage of those captive tigers are kept in hideous conditions. Tiger King seemed like the perfect opportunity to raise awareness of the plight of captive tigers and possibly inspire Congress to pass the Big Cat Public Safety Act, which would go a long way toward protecting these magnificent apex predators.

Tiger King did nothing of the sort. The documentary is less about tigers than about polygamy, misogyny, suicide, murder for hire, drug addiction and a narcissistic animal abuser named Joseph Maldonado-Passage a.k.a. Joe Exotic who enjoys cult hero status in some circles, despite being sentenced to 22 years in prison for wildlife crimes.

One reason for all the captive tigers is, of course, capitalism. People will pay a shocking amount of money to have their picture taken with a cute tiger cub or a cute cheetah or lion cub but the nonlethal stage of a big cats life is only a few weeks. Once its too big to generate money in a cub-petting scheme, its destined for a roadside zoo, a tiny backyard cage, a canned hunt or a surreptitious, point-blank execution.

Mr. Maldonado-Passages 15 minutes of fame have expired, but social media sites are still crammed with videos of people playing with wild animals, both those bred for the pet trade and those taken from the wild and reared as pets. The desire to bond with animals seems to be baked into human nature, but the internet has turned this urge into a performance art, and those expensive photos with tiger cubs are just the tip of the iceberg. Every squirrel that sits on a human shoulder, like every chipmunk that comes to a human whistle, is now the sidekick in a show. Post a selfie with a baby cottontail cuddled to your cheek, and watch the likes pile up. On Instagram, everyone is Joe Exotic.

Spring is baby season in the natural world, and all around the country right now, good-hearted people are rescuing lost baby animals and turning them into pets. The impulse is easy to understand. A fledgling songbird looks far too fragile to be tossed into the world. Baby bunnies in a nest seem too vulnerable to be left on their own, right out in the open like that. A fawn sleeping alone in the shadows looks like its been served up to a coyote. Its only compassionate to bring the little lost ones inside and feed them whatever the internet says they eat, right?

The trouble with these good intentions is that most orphaned animals arent orphans at all. Natures way of keeping vulnerable youngsters safe is often to hide them in a place where the parents activity wont draw the attention of predators. A mother cottontail deliberately leaves her babies alone all day, feeding them once in the early morning and once in the evening. A doe hides her newborn fawn while she forages for food. A hollering baby bird that looks pitifully abandoned almost certainly has frantic parents nearby, desperately hoping the giant biped predators will go away.

The only thing wild animals need from us, in most cases, is to keep our true pets indoors while their youngsters are learning how the big world works.

The big world is very hard on baby animals, and some of these babies will be injured and some of their parents will be killed. But in those cases, the frightened baby doesnt need a warm box in your kitchen, eating leftovers and serving as a prop in social media posts.

What it needs is to be taken to a licensed wildlife rehabilitation specialist who knows how to care for it properly and, later, how to reintroduce it safely into the wild, far from human habitation. A wild animal habituated to human presence is an animal that someone else is bound to kill for fear it might be rabid.

Leaving nature to its own devices is very hard if youre paying any attention at all. I, too, have been guilty of intervening where I did not belong shooing off the crow intent on eating the cardinal nestlings, bringing the monarch caterpillars indoors to raise safely away from cardinals. But a crow has babies to feed, too, and captive-raised monarchs, it turns out, are weaker than their wild siblings. Once back in the garden, such butterflies may be passing inferior genes on to the next generation.

Interacting in a healthy way with wild animals may come down to making peace with a truth thats very hard for a compassionate person to accept: Every living thing we see, as well as every living thing we dont, is either predator or prey. Or both. If we truly care about the wild animals that burrow under our toolsheds and clamber across our grass and shelter in our trees, we must find a way to accept the casual brutality of the natural world. We must teach ourselves to let the wild things be wild.

Margaret Renkl is a contributing opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South. She is the author of the book Late Migrations: A Natural History of Love and Loss.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Read this article:

How Not to Be a Tiger King - The New York Times

Star of90 Day Fianc: Before the 90 Days,Usman thinks polygamy is the only answer to having children. The couple has a lot to work through before another wife can be added to the mix.

The couple, who are decades apart in age, have quickly become themost talked-about duoon the show. Baby Girl Lisa from day one has shown her controlling side, yet Usman seems to take it. In the last episode, fans watched as the couple successfully gained his mothers blessing to marry. After the show aired,90 Day Fiancestar revealed that he felt like he got "trapped" in his complicated relationship with Baby Girl Lisa.

Related: 90 Day Fianc: Usman Wants Baby Girl Lisa to Be One of Four Wives

Unbeknownst to Lisa, Usman has always known that he would most likely have more than one wife. The rappers revelations came about when he was doing a live interview with on the Lip Service podcast. The three women were poking fun at Lisas age and Usman revealed that he must have children, one way or the other. SojaBoy revealed that he is worried about Baby Girl Lisas age becoming an negating factor in the ability to have children. He then revealed that he would look into finding another wife to have his children, as it is normal in their cultureto practice polygamy. Fans had an inkling that children would become an issue for the couple as they watched the same situation with Angela Deem and Michael Ilesanmi. Michael let slip that if Angela could not deliver him a child, he would go find a Nigerian to sleep with.

Breaking with her traditional behavior of jealousy, Baby Girl Lisa seems into the idea of four wives as long as he can pay for them. For once, Lisa has no control over the situation if she does decide to marry Usman as the Nigerian law is on his side. The law states that the man must be able to fully support each wife with all the essentials. Usman made it clear in the last episode of 90 Day Fianc Before the 90 Days that he was the alpha man and was to be respected by his wife, not bossed around. He even went as far as to say he would take his wifes opinion but in the end, all decisions were his. The Pennsylvania native was not thrilled with the proclamation and stormed off while giving Usman the finger.

There have already been rumors that the couple were married but divorced shortly after. It seems apparent that the aspiring rapper just wants to come to America to further his music career and Lisa really would just like someone to control, even if it is fake love.

Next: 90 Day Fiance: Ash Expresses Misogynistic Views During Dating Seminar

90 Day Fianc: Before the 90 Days airs on Sundays at 8pm EST on TLC.

Source: Lip Service

KUWTK's Kylie Jenner Confirms She & Travis Scott are Quarantining Together

Read the original:

90 Day Fianc: Usman Thinks Polygamy Is the Only Answer to Having Children with Lisa - Screen Rant

Representational Image.

The word Islamophobia came into vogue in 2001, after the 9/11 attack on the twin towers and other sites in the United States. In the aftermath of these attacks, the American media popularised the word Islamic terrorism and for the first time in global history a religion was associated with the political act of terrorism.

In India, hate against minorities was already prevalent when 9/11 took place, but the arguments until then had been different. This hate was a by-product of communal politics, which smouldered during the freedom movement, as a reaction to Indian nationalism. Hindu communal politics propagated Islam as a religion associated with violence. It was proclaimed that Islam spreads through force, that its adherents indulge in violence, and that Muslim kings destroyed Hindu temples, and encourage polygamy, have larger families, are more aggressive, eat beef to hurt Hindu sentiments, and so on. All this was already a part of social common sense here.

The events in India of the last few months, beginning with the abolition of Article 370, bringing in the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, and the spectacular democratic protests at Shaheen Bagh and other sites inspired by it across India, created a situation where mechanisms to spread hate against them became more aggressive. To cap it all came the Covid-19 pandemic. Then, after the Tablighi Jamaat incident, the blame of spreading Covid-19 was falsely put on Muslims as a whole. This finger-pointing became a part of the popular thinking, making the life of the Muslim communities in India generally quite difficult, even unbearable. Even the lynching of sadhus near Palghar by some villagers was initially presented as the act of the hated community, against all logic and substantive evidence.

Normally the international community articulates an occasional protest and criticism against such gross inhumanity and violation of human rights of minorities. This time the levels of demonisation of Muslims was so intense that many international platforms and voices that matter expressed their unhappiness over the painting of Muslims as the villains in India. The Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) set up by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has called for steps to protect Muslims in India.

In addition, a drama unfolded in the UAE, where lakhs of Indians, many of them Hindu, live. Some of these Hindus have become communal to the core and they also proudly display their photographs with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom they seem to consider a leader only representing the interests of the Hindus. A few of them tweeted on the Tablighi Jamaat, using virulent slurs with gay abandon. Others claimed that it is the Indians who have contributed to the growth of Gulf countries.

Some prominent members of the royal family in the UAE took up the cudgel to counter these hate speeches. A princess, Hend Al Qassimi, tweeted, upholding Gandhi, that the ruling family is friends with India, but your rudeness is not welcome. You make your bread and butter from this land which you scorn and your ridicule will not go unnoticed. She then quoted UAE laws prohibiting hate speech by citizens and non-citizens alike. This royal intervention has opened the floodgates to comments from others.

She further made an important point Dont these successful so-called powerful millionaires know that hate speech is the prelude to genocide? Nazism wasnt born in a day. It was allowed to grow like a weed that went wild because people chose to look the other side and it thrived on that specific weakness called silence. Hate is being preached openly in India against Muslims, in a nation of 182 million Muslims.

Modi, who has typically responding belatedly to such incidents in the past, woke up with these goings-on. Not only are large numbers of Indians gainfully employed in these countries, they are also repatriating millions of rupees back home. India is the third major country with trade with West Asian nations. Modi tweeted, COVID-19 does not see race, religion, colour, caste, creed, language or border before striking. Our response and conduct thereafter should attach primacy to unity and brotherhood. We are in this together. Of course, the Prime Minister knows who are spreading this hate, in the media, social media or through word-of-mouth channels, but there is no reprimand against them in his tweet.

On similar lines, the sarsanghchalak (top leader) of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat, also said that a whole community should not be targeted for the actions of few. Both these top Hindu nationalist leaders fortunately woke up after the reprimands Indians were getting internationallyparticularly the reaction from UAEGulf countries have already started terminating the jobs of some Indians for spreading hate.

Interestingly, at the same time, Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi described India being a jannat (heaven) for Muslims.

Many commentators are hoping that the statements of Modi and Bhagwat can put the brakes on the ongoing hate speeches and acts against the hapless minority. But things are not so simple. Todays atmosphere has been built up over close to a century of work, done by communal forces. The molecular permeation of these hateful interpretations of history, and the representation of Islam and Muslims by American-influenced media after 9/11 are the twin pillars of his edifice of hate, which has dug fairly deep into the social thinking in India.

Covid-19 has demonstrated how deep the roots of communal thought process are. This was possible only because of the decades-long divisive propaganda against the concept of fraternity, which is the foundation of Indian nationalism. The protests from the UAE, which incidentally gave the highest civilian honour to Modi in 2019, may bring a short hiatus to the process here, but the real struggle is inside the country, where the social perceptions of Indian nationalismarticulated by Gandhi and Nehru in particularare to be made to reach all Indians through innovative and rational mechanisms.

The author is a social activist and commentator. The views are personal.

Originally posted here:

Slam the Brakes on Rampant Islamophobia - NewsClick

Nordic human rights NGOs are focusing their attention on Moroccan Sahrawis living peacefully in Morocco, while they turn a blind eye to the situation of an entire population victim of polisario abuses in the Tindouf camps.

Forced marriages of underage girls are among the most blatant violations of human rights perpetrated by the Polisario in the Tindouf camps. Underage girls are forced to abide by these archaic practices to quell the nauseating instincts of the separatist movement leaders.

women in the Tindouf camps are subjected to other violations, particularly polygamy or the practice of interchanging women between militiamen.Ten years after she was raped by the current head of the Polisario, Brahim Ghali, who was then positioned in Algiers as the separatists representative, the young woman Khadijatou Mahmoud is still fighting for justice in Spain against her rapist.

Khadijatou Mahmoud, ex-translator in the Tindouf camps, also denounced in her plea the sexual assaults suffered by other Sahrawi women in the Tindouf camps in Algerian territory.

However, NGOs in Norway and Sweden ignore the fate of these victims of abuses as they turn a blind eye to the embezzlement of the aid they send to the needy inhabitants of the Tindouf camps. This aid is actually sold by the polisario leaders on the markets of neighboring countries.

An identified theft involving Brahim Ghali and his accomplices at a time when the camps populations need everything to cope with the hardships of their everyday life, a life made more difficult with the Coronavirus pandemic in the camps that have no running water or sanitation, nor any adequate health facilities to treat the sick.

North Africa Post's news desk is composed of journalists and editors, who are constantly working to provide new and accurate stories to NAP readers.

Read the original post:

How Nordic NGOs turn a blind eye to what is happening in the Tindouf camps - The North Africa Post

Posted on May 1, 2020 at 1:20 pm

90 Day Fiance: Before the 90 Days personality, Usman Umar, dished about his messy romance with Lisa Babygirl Hamme, on a recent episode of Angela Yees podcast, Lip Service.

The unlikely couple supposedly wed in February, but fans are suspicious that the Nigerian rapper, aka SojaBoy, is in it for a green card and TLC fame.

Cheating rumors have been following Lisa HammeBabylove, and Usman didnt squelch speculation during the recent chat fest.

Usman Umar implied that he was sticking with Lisa Hammebecause she tricked him into believing that she might hurt herself and that was only the beginning.

An interviewer asked Usman Umar if he was in love with his American bride and Usmans dry response raised listener eyebrows.

Yeah, I have to be, he said flatly. Because somebody who has been with you almost every day, you get used to that person. And if you dont talk to that person, sometimes you miss them. So by the time you start missing somebody, definitely I think you love them or you care for them.

Usman Umar confirmed that his music career has always been number one, and admitted that he did sometimes doubt his relationship with Lisa. When the podcasters hinted that he was trapped by Lisa, 52, Usman didnt hold back.

Honestly, I can say yes. I can say yes, Usman confessed. The point here is that I am doing this to make Lisa happy.

Usman Umar, 31, dropped a polygamy bombshellrevealing that he is open to marrying multiple women. He explained that in Nigeria, Muslim men can legally marry up to four wives, as long as they can financially support them equally. Usman also noted that Lisa cannot give him a child.

Lisa cannot give me [a] child, and I need a child. You know? Usman explained. But if I do this to make her happy, maybe the time is coming that I will have [a] child. Because in my religion, and in my culture, Im allowed to get married with four wives.

Last week, Lisas rep responded to Usmans comments, and confirmed that the couple was still together. Rocco Straz spoke to In Touch Weekly, repeating Nigerian law, and emphasizing the financial burden of such an arrangement.

As far as fourwivesin the Islamicreligion, it is acceptable for him to take fourwives, BUT and I mean BUT, he must be able to provide for all fourwives, Straz said.

[This includes] financially, housing, utilities, vehicles, car insurance and medical insurance, the rep added. At that point, if he is able to do all of that, he may take another wife. Thewivesdo not have to contribute their personal finances with him.

Watch 90 Day Fiance: Before the 90 Days, Sunday nights, at 8 pm, ET, on TLC.

Stay Connected With All About The Tea:TwitterInstagramYouTube

See original here:

'90 Day Fiance' Lisa Hamme Says She's Open to Allowing Usman Umar to Practice Polygamy! - All About The Tea

Editor's note: Netflix's new docuseries "Tiger King" takes viewers into the strange world of big cat collectors. Featuring eccentric characters with names like Joe Exotic and Bhagavan "Doc" Antle, the series touches on polygamy, addiction and personality cults, while exploring a mysterious disappearance and a murder-for-hire.

To Allison Skidmore, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz who studies wildlife trafficking, the documentary didn't bring enough attention to the scourge of captive big cats.

A former park ranger, Skidmore first started studying the issue in the U.S. after the infamous death of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. She was shocked to learn about how little oversight there was stateside. We asked her about the legality, incentives and ease of buying and selling tigers.

1. How many captive tigers are in the U.S.?

Unfortunately, there's no straightforward answer. The vast majority of captive tigers are crossbred hybrids, so they aren't identified as members of one of the six tiger subspeciesthe Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger and Malayan tiger. Instead, they're classified as "generic."

Advertisement:

Less than 5% or fewer than 350of tigers in captivity are managed through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that serves as an accrediting body in the U.S. They ensure accredited facilities meet higher standards of animal care than required by law.

All the rest are privately owned tigers, meaning they don't belong to one of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums' 236 sponsored institutions. These are considered generic and fall outside of federal oversight.

There's no legal requirement to register these generic tigers, nor a comprehensive national database to track and monitor them. The best educated guess puts the number of tigers at around 10,000 in the U.S. Estimates put the global captive tiger population as high as 25,000.

In comparison, there are fewer than 4,000 tigers in the wild down from 100,000 a century ago.

2. How do tigers change hands?

The Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna prevent the importation of tigers from the wild. So all tigers in the U.S. are born in captivity, with the rare exception of an orphaned wild cub that may end up in a zoo.

Only purebred tigers that are one of the six definitive subspecies are accounted for; these are the tigers you see in places like the Smithsonian National Zoo and generally belong to the Species Survival Plan, a captive breeding program designed to regulate the exchange of specific endangered species between member zoos in order to maintain genetic diversity.

All other tigers are found in zoos, sanctuaries, carnivals, wildlife parks, exhibits and private homes that aren't sanctioned by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. They can change hands in any number of ways, from online marketplaces to exotic animal auctions. They can be bought for as little as US$800 to $2,000 for a cub and $200 to $500 for an adult, which is less expensive than many purebred dog puppies.

3. Can I legally buy a tiger?

The U.S. is plagued with complicated and vague laws concerning tiger ownership.

However, there are no federal statutes or regulations that expressly forbid private ownership of tigers. State and local jurisdictions have been given this authority, and some do pass bans or require permits. Thirty-two states have bans or partial bans, and 14 states allow ownership with a simple license or permit. Four states Alabama, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Nevada have no form of oversight or regulation at all.

An overarching, cohesive framework of regulations is missing, and even in states that ban private ownership, there are loopholes. For example, in all but three states, owners can apply for what's called a "federal exhibitor license," which is remarkably cheap and easy to obtain and circumvents any stricter state or local laws in place.

You now need a permit to transport tigers across state lines, but there's still no permit required for intra-state travel.

4. What's in it for the owners?

Some see it as a business venture, while others claim they care about conservation. I consider the latter reason insincere.

Many facilities promote themselves as wildlife refuges or sanctuaries. These places frame their breeding and exhibition practices as stewardship, as if they're contributing to an endangered animal's survival. The reality is that no captive tiger has ever been released into the wild, so it's not like these facilities can augment wild populations. A true sanctuary or refuge should have a strict no breeding or handling policy, and should have education programs dedicated to promoting conservation.

Bottle-feeding at a 'pseudo-sanctuary' in Southern California. Allison Skidmore, Author provided

Ultimately, tigers are big money makers, especially tiger cubs. The Animal Welfare Act allows cub petting from eight to 12 weeks of age. People pay $100 to $700 to pet, bottle-feed, swim with or take a photo with a cub.

None of these profits go toward the conservation of wild tigers, and this small window of opportunity for direct public contact means that exhibitors must continually breed tigers to maintain a constant supply of cubs.

The value of cubs declines significantly after 12 weeks. Where do all these surplus tigers go? Unfortunately, due to a lack of regulatory oversight, it's hard to know.

Since many states don't account for their live tigers, there's also no oversight regarding the reporting and disposal of dead tigers. Wildlife criminologists fear that these tigers can easily end up in the black market where their parts can cumulatively be worth up to $70,000. There's evidence of U.S. captive tigers tied to the domestic black market trade: In 2003, an owner of a tiger "rescue" facility was found to have 90 dead tigers in freezers on his property. And in 2001, an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ended up leading to the prosecutions of 16 people for buying, selling and slaughtering 19 tigers.

5. What role does social media play?

Posing with tigers on social media platforms like Instagram and on dating apps has become a huge problem. Not only can it create a health and safety risk for both the human and tiger, but it also fosters a false narrative.

If you see thousands of photos of people with captive tigers, it masks the true problem of endangered tigers in the wild. Some might wonder whether tigers are really so endangered if they're so easy to pose with.

The reality of the wild tiger's plight has become masked behind the pomp and pageantry of social media. This marginalizes meaningful ideas about conservation and the true status of tigers as one of the most endangered big cats.

Allison Skidmore, PhD Candidate in Environmental Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

See original here:

"Tiger King" and America's captive tiger problem - Salon

Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over a century. Polygamy or more correctly polygyny, the marriage of more than one woman to the same man was a part of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a half-century. The practice began during the lifetime of Joseph Smith but became publicly and widely known during the time of Brigham Young.

In addition to the information on this page, see comprehensiveessays on LDS.org:

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and NauvooPlural Marriage and Families in Early UtahThe Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.

Latter-day Saint converts in the 19th century had been raised in traditional, monogamous homes and struggled with the idea of a man having more than one wife. It was as foreign to them as it would be to most families today in the western world, and even Brigham Young, who was later to have many wives and children, confessed to his initial dread of the principle of plural marriage.

Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the "Manifesto," a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage.

Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is banned in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member.

The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob, chapter 2): Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

In other words, the standard of the Lords people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.

Polygamous groups and individuals in and around Utah often cause confusion for casual observers and for visiting news media. The polygamists and polygamist organizations in parts of the western United States and Canada have no affiliation whatsoever with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, despite the fact that the term "Mormon" widely understood to be a nickname for Latter-day Saints is sometimes incorrectly applied to them.

View post:

Polygamy - Mormon Newsroom

For much of the 19th century, a significant number of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practiced plural marriagethe marriage of one man to more than one woman. The beginning and end of the practice were directed by revelation through Gods prophets. The initial command to practice plural marriage came through Joseph Smith, the founding prophet and President of the Church. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto, which led to the end of plural marriage in the Church.

The end of plural marriage required great faith and sometimes complicated, painfuland intensely personaldecisions on the part of individual members and Church leaders. Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was a process rather than a single event. Revelation came line upon line, precept upon precept.1

For half a century, beginning in the early 1840s, Church members viewed plural marriage as a commandment from God, an imperative that helped raise up a righteous posterity unto the Lord.2 Though not all Church members were expected to enter into plural marriage, those who did so believed they would be blessed for their participation. Between the 1850s and the 1880s, many Latter-day Saints lived in plural families as husbands, wives, or children.3

In many parts of the world, polygamy was socially acceptable and legally permissible. But in the United States, most people thought that the practice was morally wrong. These objections led to legislative efforts to end polygamy. Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed a series of laws designed to force Latter-day Saints to relinquish plural marriage.4

In the face of these measures, Latter-day Saints maintained that plural marriage was a religious principle protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Church mounted a vigorous legal defense all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879), the Supreme Court ruled against the Latter-day Saints: religious belief was protected by law, religious practice was not. According to the courts opinion, marriage was a civil contract regulated by the state. Monogamy was the only form of marriage sanctioned by the state. Polygamy, the court explained, has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.5

Latter-day Saints sincerely desired to be loyal citizens of the United States, which they considered a divinely founded nation. But they also accepted plural marriage as a commandment from God and believed the court was unjustly depriving them of their right to follow Gods commands.

Confronted with these contradictory allegiances, Church leaders encouraged members to obey God rather than man. Many Latter-day Saints embarked on a course of civil disobedience during the 1880s by continuing to live in plural marriage and to enter into new plural marriages.6 The federal government responded by enacting ever more punishing legislation.

Between 1850 and 1896, Utah was a territory of the U.S. government, which meant that federal officials in Washington, D.C., exercised great control over local matters. In 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act, which made unlawful cohabitation (interpreted as a man living with more than one wife) punishable by six months of imprisonment and a $300 fine. In 1887 Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker Act to punish the Church itself, not just its members. The act dissolved the corporation of the Church and directed that all Church property over $50,000 be forfeited to the government.

This government opposition strengthened the Saints resolve to resist what they deemed to be unjust laws. Polygamous men went into hiding, sometimes for years at a time, moving from house to house and staying with friends and relatives. Others assumed aliases and moved to out-of-the-way places in southern Utah, Arizona, Canada, and Mexico.7 Many escaped prosecution; many others, when arrested, pled guilty and submitted to fines and imprisonment.

This antipolygamy campaign created great disruption in Mormon communities. The departure of husbands left wives and children to tend farms and businesses, causing incomes to drop and economic recession to set in. The campaign also strained families. New plural wives had to live apart from their husbands, their confidential marriages known only to a few. Pregnant women often chose to go into hiding, at times in remote locales, rather than risk being subpoenaed to testify in court against their husbands. Children lived in fear that their families would be broken up or that they would be forced to testify against their parents. Some children went into hiding and lived under assumed names.8

Despite countless difficulties, many Latter-day Saints were convinced that theantipolygamy campaignwas useful in accomplishing Gods purposes. They testified that God was humbling and purifying His covenant people as He had done in ages past. Myron Tanner, a bishop in Provo, Utah, felt that the hand of oppression laid on the parents, is doing more to convince our Children of the truth of Mormonism than anything else could have done.9 Incarceration for conscience sake proved edifying for many. George Q. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency, emerged from his five months in the Utah penitentiary rejuvenated. My cell has seemed a heavenly place, and I feel that angels have been there, he wrote.10

The Church completed and dedicated two temples during the antipolygamy campaign, a remarkable achievement.11 But as federal pressure intensified, many essential aspects of Church government were severely curtailed, and civil disobedience looked increasingly untenable as a long-term solution. Between 1885 and 1889, most Apostles and stake presidents were in hiding or in prison. After federal agents began seizing Church property in accordance with the Edmunds-Tucker legislation, management of the Church became more difficult.12

After two decades of seeking either to negotiate a change in the law or avoid its disastrous consequences, Church leaders began to investigate alternative responses. In 1885 and 1886 they established settlements in Mexico and Canada, outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law, where polygamous families could live peaceably. Hoping that a moderation in their position would lead to a reduction in hostilities, Church leaders advised plural husbands to live openly with only one of their wives, and advocated that plural marriage not be taught publicly. In 1889, Church authorities prohibited the performance of new plural marriages in Utah.13

Church leaders prayerfully sought guidance from the Lord and struggled to understand what they should do. Both President John Taylor and President Wilford Woodruff felt the Lord directing them to stay the course and not renounce plural marriage.14

This inspiration came when paths for legal redress were still open. The last of the paths closed in May 1890, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, allowing the confiscation of Church property to proceed. President Woodruff saw that the Churchs temples and its ordinances were now at risk. Burdened by this threat, he prayed intensely over the matter. The Lord showed me by vision and revelation, he later said, exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice, referring to plural marriage. All the temples [would] go out of our hands. God has told me exactly what to do, and what the result would be if we did not do it.15

On September 25, 1890, President Woodruff wrote in his journal that he was under the necessity of acting for the Temporal Salvation of the Church. He stated, After Praying to the Lord & feeling inspired by his spirit I have issued [a] Proclamation.16 This proclamation, now published in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 1, was released to the public on September 25 and became known as the Manifesto.17

The Manifesto was carefully worded to address the immediate conflict with the U.S. government. We are not teaching polygamy, or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, President Woodruff said. Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.18

The members of the Quorum of the Twelve varied in their reactions to the Manifesto. Franklin D. Richards was sure it was the work of the Lord. Francis M. Lyman said that he had endorsed the Manifesto fully when he first heard it.19 Not all the Twelve accepted the document immediately. John W. Taylor said he did not yet feel quite right about it at first.20 John Henry Smith candidly admitted that the Manifesto had disturbed his feelings very much and that he was still somewhat at sea regarding it.21 Within a week, however, all members of the Twelve voted to sustain the Manifesto.

The Manifesto was formally presented to the Church at the semiannual general conference held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle in October 1890. On Monday, October 6, Orson F. Whitney, a Salt Lake City bishop, stood at the pulpit and read the Articles of Faith, which included the line that Latter-day Saints believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. These articles were sustained by uplifted hand. Whitney then read the Manifesto, and Lorenzo Snow, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, moved that the document be accepted as authoritative and binding. The assembly was then asked to vote on this motion. The Deseret News reported that the vote was unanimous; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting.22

Rank-and-file Latter-day Saints accepted the Manifesto with various degrees of reservation. Many were not ready for plural marriage to come to an end. General Relief Society president Zina D. H. Young, writing in her journal on the day the Manifesto was presented to the Church, captured the anguish of the moment: Today the hearts of all were tried but looked to God and submitted.23 The Manifesto prompted uncertainty about the future of some relationships. Eugenia Washburn Larsen, fearing the worst, reported feeling dense darkness when she imagined herself and other wives and children being turned adrift by husbands.24 Other plural wives, however, reacted to the Manifesto with great relief.25

Latter-day Saints believe that the Lord reveals His will line upon line; here a little, there a little.26 Church members living in 1890 generally believed that the Manifesto was the work of the Lord, in Franklin D. Richardss words. But the full implications of the Manifesto were not apparent at first; its scope had to be worked out, and authorities differed on how best to proceed. We have been led to our present position by degrees, Apostle Heber J. Grant explained.27 Over time and through effort to receive continuing revelation, Church members saw by degrees how to interpret the Manifesto going forward.

At first, many Church leaders believed the Manifesto merely suspended plural marriage for an indefinite time.28 Having lived, taught, and suffered for plural marriage for so long, it was difficult to imagine a world without it. George Q. Cannon, a counselor in the First Presidency, likened the Manifesto to the Lords reprieve from the command to build temples in Missouri in the 1830s after the Saints were expelled from the state. In a sermon given immediately after the Manifesto was sustained at general conference, Cannon quoted a passage of scripture in which the Lord excuses those who diligently seek to carry out a commandment from Him, only to be prevented by their enemies: Behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.29

Nevertheless, many practical matters had to be settled. The Manifesto was silent on what existing plural families should do. On their own initiative, some couples separated or divorced as a result of the Manifesto; other husbands stopped cohabiting with all but one of their wives but continued to provide financial and emotional support to all dependents.30 In closed-door meetings with local leaders, the First Presidency condemned men who left their wives by using the Manifesto as an excuse. I did not, could not and would not promise that you would desert your wives and children, President Woodruff told the men. This you cannot do in honor. 31

Believing that the covenants they made with God and their spouses had to be honored above all else, many husbands, including Church leaders, continued to cohabit with their plural wives and fathered children with them well into the 20th century.32 Continued cohabitation exposed those couples to the threat of prosecution, just as it did before the Manifesto. But these threats were markedly diminished after 1890. The Manifesto marked a new relationship with the federal government and the nation: prosecution of polygamists declined, plural wives came out of hiding and assumed their married names, and husbands interacted more freely with their families, especially after U.S. president Benjamin Harrison granted general amnesty to Mormon polygamists in 1893.33 Three years later, Utah became a state with a constitution that banned polygamy.

The Manifesto declared President Woodruffs intention to submit to the laws of the United States. It said nothing about the laws of other nations. Ever since the opening of colonies in Mexico and Canada, Church leaders had performed plural marriages in those countries, and after October 1890, plural marriages continued to be quietly performed there.34 As a rule, these marriages were not promoted by Church leaders and were difficult to get approved. Either one or both of the spouses who entered into these unions typically had to agree to remain in Canada or Mexico. Under exceptional circumstances, a smaller number of new plural marriages were performed in the United States between 1890 and 1904, though whether the marriages were authorized to have been performed within the states is unclear.35

The precise number of new plural marriages performed during these years, inside and outside the United States, is unknown. Sealing records kept during this period typically did not indicate whether a sealing was monogamous or plural, making an exhaustive calculation difficult. A rough sense of scale, however, can be seen in a chronological ledger of marriages and sealings kept by Church scribes. Between the late 1880s and the early 1900s, during a time when temples were few and travel to them was long and arduous, Latter-day Saint couples who lived far away from temples were permitted to be sealed in marriage outside them.

The ledger of marriages and sealings performed outside the temple, which is not comprehensive, lists 315 marriages performed between October 17, 1890, and September 8, 1903.36 Of the 315 marriages recorded in the ledger, research indicates that 25 (7.9%) were plural marriages and 290 were monogamous marriages (92.1%). Almost all the monogamous marriages recorded were performed in Arizona or Mexico. Of the 25 plural marriages, 18 took place in Mexico, 3 in Arizona, 2 in Utah, and 1 each in Colorado and on a boat on the Pacific Ocean. Overall, the record shows that plural marriage was a declining practice and that Church leaders were acting in good conscience to abide by the terms of the Manifesto as they understood them.37

The exact process by which these marriages were approved remains unclear. For a time, post-Manifesto plural marriages required the approval of a member of the First Presidency. There is no definitive evidence, however, that the decisions were made by the First Presidency as a whole; President Woodruff, for example, typically referred requests to allow new plural marriages to President Cannon for his personal consideration.38 By the late 1890s, at least some of the men who had authority to perform sealings apparently considered themselves free to either accept or reject requests at their own discretion, independent of the First Presidency. Apostle Heber J. Grant, for example, reported that while visiting Mormon settlements in Mexico in 1900, he received 10 applications in a single day requesting plural marriages. He declined them all. I confess, he told a friend, that it has always gone against my grain to have any violations of documents [i.e. the Manifesto] of this kind.39

At first, the performance of new plural marriages after the Manifesto was largely unknown to people outside the Church. When discovered, these marriages troubled many Americans, especially after President George Q. Cannon stated in an 1899 interview with the New York Herald that new plural marriages might be performed in Canada and Mexico.40 After the election of B. H. Roberts, a member of the First Council of the Seventy, to the U.S. Congress, it became known that Roberts had three wives, one of whom he married after the Manifesto. A petition of 7 million signatures demanded that Roberts not be seated. Congress complied, and Roberts was barred from his office.41

The exclusion of B. H. Roberts opened Mormon marital practices to renewed scrutiny. Church President Lorenzo Snow issued a statement clarifying that new plural marriages had ceased in the Church and that the Manifesto extended to all parts of the world, counsel he repeated in private. Even so, a small number of new plural marriages continued to be performed, probably without President Snows knowledge or approval. After Joseph F. Smith became Church President in 1901, a small number of new plural marriages were also performed during the early years of his administration.42

The Churchs role in these marriages became a subject of intense debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903. Although Smoot was a monogamist, his apostleship put his loyalty to the country under scrutiny. How could Smoot both uphold the laws of the Church, some of whose officers had performed, consented to, or participated in new plural marriages, and uphold the laws of the land, which made plural marriage illegal? For four years legislators debated this question in lengthy public hearings.

The Senate called on many witnesses to testify. Church President Joseph F. Smith took the stand in the Senate chamber in March 1904. When asked, he defended his family relationships, telling the committee that he had cohabited with his wives and fathered children with them since 1890. He said it would be dishonorable of him to break the sacred covenants he had made with his wives and with God. When questioned about new plural marriages performed since 1890, President Smith carefully distinguished between actions sanctioned by the Church and ratified in Church councils and conferences, and the actions undertaken by individual members of the Church. There never has been a plural marriage by the consent or sanction or knowledge or approval of the church since the manifesto, he testified.43

In this legal setting, President Smith sought to protect the Church while stating the truth. His testimony conveyed a distinction Church leaders had long understood: the Manifesto removed the divine command for the Church collectively to sustain and defend plural marriage; it had not, up to this time, prohibited individuals from continuing to practice or perform plural marriage as a matter of religious conscience.

The time was right for a change in this understanding. A majority of Mormon marriages had always been monogamous, and a shift toward monogamy as the only approved form had long been underway. In 1889, a lifelong monogamist was called to the Quorum of the Twelve; after 1897, every new Apostle called into the Twelve, with one exception, was a monogamist at the time of his appointment.44 Beginning in the 1890s, as Church leaders urged members to remain in their native lands and build Zion in those places rather than immigrate to Utah as in previous years, it became important for them to abide the laws mandating monogamy.

During his Senate testimony, President Smith promised publicly to clarify the Churchs position about plural marriage. At the April 1904 general conference, President Smith issued a forceful statement, known as the Second Manifesto, attaching penalties to entering into plural marriage: If any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage he will be deemed in transgression against the Church and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.45 This statement had been approved by the leading councils of the Church and was unanimously sustained at the conference as authoritative and binding on the Church.46

The Second Manifesto was a watershed event. For the first time, Church members were put on notice that new plural marriages stood unapproved by God and the Church. The Second Manifesto expanded the reach and scope of the first. When [the Manifesto] was given, Elder Francis M. Lyman, President of the Quorum of the Twelve, explained, it simply gave notice to the Saints that they need not enter plural marriage any longer, but the action taken at the conference held in Salt Lake City on the 6th day of April 1904 [the Second Manifesto] made that manifesto prohibitory.47

Church leaders acted to communicate the seriousness of this declaration to leaders and members at all levels. President Lyman sent letters to each member of the Quorum of the Twelve, by direction of the First Presidency, advising them that the Second Manifesto would be strictly enforced.48 Contrary to direction, two Apostles, John W. Taylor and Matthias F. Cowley, continued to perform and encourage new plural marriages after the Second Manifesto. They were eventually dropped from the quorum.49 Taylor was later excommunicated from the Church after he insisted on his right to continue to perform plural marriages. Cowley was restricted from using his priesthood and later admitted that he had been wholly in error.50

Some couples who entered into plural marriage between 1890 and 1904 separated after the Second Manifesto, but many others quietly cohabited into the 1930s and beyond.51 Church members who rejected the Second Manifesto and continued to publicly advocate plural marriage or undertake new plural marriages were summoned to Church disciplinary councils. Some who were excommunicated coalesced into independent movements and are sometimes called fundamentalists. These groups are not affiliated with or supported by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since the administration of Joseph F. Smith, Church Presidents have repeatedly emphasized that the Church and its members are no longer authorized to enter into plural marriage and have underscored the sincerity of their words by urging local leaders to bring noncompliant members before Church disciplinary councils.

Marriage between one man and one woman is Gods standard for marriage, unless He declares otherwise, which He did through His prophet, Joseph Smith. The Manifesto marked the beginning of the return to monogamy, which is the standard of the Church today.52 Speaking at general conference soon after the Manifesto was given, President George Q. Cannon reflected on the revelatory process that brought the Manifesto about: The Presidency of the Church have to walk just as you walk, he said. They have to take steps just as you take steps. They have to depend upon the revelations of God as they come to them. They cannot see the end from the beginning, as the Lord does. All that we can do, Cannon said, speaking of the First Presidency, is to seek the mind and will of God, and when that comes to us, though it may come in contact with every feeling that we have previously entertained, we have no option but to take the step that God points out, and to trust to Him.53

Resources

The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

Read more here:

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

Joe Exotic is no stranger when it comes to marriage, having been wed five times over the decades but as we've seen in Netflix's Tiger King they haven't all ended in wedded bliss.

The main protagonist of the docuseries, who was born Joe Schreibvogel and is now Joseph Maldonado-Passage, always had a man by his side during his time as ruler at the GW Zoo in Oklahoma before he was sentenced to 22 years in prison.

He is currently serving time for trying to hire a hitman to kill animal-rights activist Carole Baskin, who was persistent in trying to get Joes zoo shut down for his treatment of animals and for killing five tiger cubs.

The petting zoo owner, 57, is still reportedly married to his most recent husband Dillon Passage, who he met when Dillon was 19,

It's not the first time he married someone considerably younger than him, as he met John Finlay and Travis Maldonado when they were both 19 and eventually had a 'throuple' marriage.

Here we take a look at his past relationships, from tragedy, polygamy and deceit what really happened to his ex-husbands?

Joe was in his early twenties when he met his first husband Brian Rhyne, who was 19 at the time, in a gay cowboy bar called Round Up in Texas.

He was working there as a security guard and it wasn't long before Brian moved into Joe's trailer, according to a profile by New York Mag about the exotic cat lover.

They eventually got married at the same bar they met and Brian helped Joe open his zoo named after his brother Garold Wayne who died in a car crash.

But tragically by 2001 Brian passed away from complications related to HIV, leaving Joe heartbroken.

Joe's second husband who is not spoken about in the documentary is Jeffrey Charles 'JC' Hartpence.

Joe reportedly met the events producer a year after Brian's death, and they went on to team up together to launch Joe's travelling zoo show performing across shopping centres and state fairs across Oklahoma, Wisconsin and Texas.

The relationship between JC, who has been named as Joe's life partner as well as husband, was volatile and it is believed to have come to an end when JC held a gun to Joe's face.

Several years after their split JC was convicted for "aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of 14" and was put on the sex offenders register.

He is in a Kansas prison where he is serving a life sentence for first degree felony murder and won't be eligible for parole until 2034.

After Joe split from JC, he met a 19 year old John Finlay who had just recently graduated from school in 2003. The zoo owner hired John to help run the zoo and is his first husband to actually feature in the Tiger King docuseries.

By 2014 John took part in a wedding alongside Joe and their throuple partner Travis Maldonado in an polygamist ceremony, but a year later John wasn't happy and wanted out of the relationship.

John, who is now Joes ex husband and has a brand new set of teeth, later admitted that he was "never gay" and identified as straight, confessing to having an affair with the GW Zoo receptionist at the time.

He is filmed for the majority of the programme shirtless revealing plenty of tattoos, one of which read 'Privately Owned By Joe Exotic' he later got it covered up in the last episode of the series.

He now also lives with his wife and former GW Zoo receptionist Stormey Sanders and has started a Facebook page titled The Truth About John Finlay, where he shares updates on his life, including various photos and videos.

"Yes I have my teeth fixed," Finlay said in one post. "The producers of the Netflix series had video and pictures of this but chose not to show it."

In 2013 Travis Maldonado, then 19, started working at the GW Zoo, he told everyone apart from Joe that he was straight.

A year later he was married to Joe and John in a threeway ceremony, footage of which is shown in the Netflix series.

Tragically an increasingly erratic Travis, who had a drug problem, accidentally shot himself in the head after trying to prove a point that a gun wouldn't fire without a chamber.

The moment is documented in Tiger King, showing that another GW Zoo employee witnessed the awful moment which devastated Joe who had been running for governor of Oklahoma at the time of his husband's death in 2017.

Despite his grief over the accidental death of Travis, Joe moved on just two months later marrying his fifth husband Dillon Passage, 19.

Joe met Dillon online and one of their first dates is shown in the Netflix show, with Joe saying that they met up and Dillon never went back home, instead moving in with Joe.

By this point Joe was no longer the official owner of GW Zoo and when Dillon was 22, they moved to Florida together before Joe was later arrested and sentenced to 22 years in prison.

Its reported that Dillon is still in fact married to Joe, after he posted: Im still married to Joe but my social media platform isnt used for any Joe things."

You can now get OK! Magazine delivered through your letterbox for the unbeatable price of 13 editions for just 13 - or free for 14 days on tablet.

Be the first to hear about celebrity engagements, babies, splits and more with this incredible limited time subscriptiondeal to the UK's leading celebrity weekly magazine.

These amazing offers mean you won't have to miss out on your favourite read during the ongoing crisis.

They're perfect if you're self-isolating - or have an elderly family member or friend who can't get out of the house. To sign up simply visitok.co.uk/subscribeOffer valid until Tues April 28, 2020. Or get the magazine on your digital device with the tablet edition free for 14 days on iOS or Android.

See the rest here:

Tiger King Joe Exotic's five husbands: All you need to know from tragedy to polygamy - OK! magazine

One of the most shocking, heartbreaking pieces in Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness is the accidental death of Joseph Maldonado-Passages (aka Joe Exotic) husband, Travis Maldonado. The death happens just outside of the cameras frame, catching Maldonado-Passages campaign manager, Joshua Dial, by complete surprise. The scene tragically unfurls in the seven-part Netflix docuseries. How is Dial doing now? Heres what we know.

Tiger King has many different, wild threads to follow. The series itself focuses on eccentric G.W. Zoo owner, Joseph Maldonado-Passage (aka Joe Exotic), his polygamy, big cat ownership, and ultimately, his alleged involvement in a murder-for-hire plot that landed him behind bars.

The second part of the hit series focuses on Maldonado-Passages 2017 bid in the political world. At the time, Joshua Dial was Maldonado-Passages gubernatorialcampaign manager. Dial moved to Wynnewood to live at the zoo and deemed that time the worst two years of his life.

Maldonado-Passage ran for governor as a libertarian. However, Dial eventually left the campaign in June 2018 months before Maldonado-Passages arrest on the murder-for-hire plot (among other charges).

While Maldonado-Passage is serving a 22-year sentence, Dial is struggling to come to terms with Travis Maldonados accidental death, which Dial witnessed.

As told by Dial in Tiger King, Maldonado was a gun enthusiast who got a kick out of pointing his guns at people, particularly by waking Dial this way.

What Travis would do in the mornings is he would kick down the door, point a gun at you, he said. That very day he did that to me. He broke in my room, pointed that new gun that he said would not fire without a clip at me, and asked me to wake up. Im lucky to even be alive.

On the day of Maldonados death, the two were in Dials office at the Greater Wynnewood Exotic Animal Park.

He said, Hey, did you know a Ruger wont fire without a clip? Dial explained. I said, Really? He put the gun to his temple at that point and pulled the trigger. The second he pulled the trigger, I knew he was dead. You dont come back from something like that.

Dial watched 23-year-old Maldonado shoot himself in the head and now, hes struggling with the trauma of it all.

I definitely have PTSD, he told People. There was no preparation for what I saw in that office. It was so shocking. I have nightmares about it.

Afterward, Dial said Maldonado-Passage allegedly blamed employees for not doing more to save Maldonado. He then, as Dial said, forced them to watch a video of a fellow staffer getting attacked by a tiger, which led to amputation.

Something as tragic as an accidental death isnt something most can just get over. Dial posted on his Facebook page a year after he left Maldonado-Passages campaign.

This month will make one year since I resigned as campaign manager for Joe, he wrote. After watching his husband kill himself in my office, its understating the matter by saying it was a rough campaign to work. In the past year, Ive been doing some political soul-searching.

Dial revealed Maldonado-Passage attempted to make contact from Grady County Jail. Dial is trying to move on with his fianc, Jackie Long. The two became engaged in 2019 and Dial said he has not watched Tiger King.

I have tried to move on, and I have been successful so far. I was given a new life and a second chance when I met my fianc; I have no desire to bring any of that pain into my life, he told Oxygen.

Hes currently raising money on a GoFundMe page to help him pay for counseling to work through his PTSD. An update revealed hes nearly achieved his goal and has found a provider and is currently being seen.

Ive just been grateful for the support of people that are trying to get me help for counseling, he told People.

I dont want to have to ask for help, but I know that everything I went through, especially working over a-year-and-a-half looking at that bullet hole thousands of times, I need help. Its been a hard realization for me to come to. To watch someone take their own life is a violation against nature. Its not something that the human brain is meant to deal with.

Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem, and Madness is available on Netflix now.

Continued here:

'Tiger King' Star Joshua Dial Says He Has PTSD From Witnessing Travis Maldonado's Tragic Death: 'I Have Nightmares About It' - Showbiz Cheat Sheet