Ervil LeBaron & The Extremes Of Religious Conviction

I've just finished two books which detail the bloody history of two Mormon sects headed by two very different brothers. The 4 O'Clock Murders gives a very well-written overview of the history of the LeBaron family, their Mormon fundamentalist faith and the events leading up to and following the religious split that would lead to a great deal of misery. Cult Insanity: A Memoir of Polygamy, Prophets, and Blood Atonement by Irene Spencer, a personal memoir of her time as the plural wife of Verlan LeBaron. As a (then) member of the family and someone who was privy to the internal politics of the sects it is an interesting insider account which complements The 4 O'Clock Murders and also contains a few moments of light relief.


The history of the faith journey of the LeBarons is far too convoluted (comprising as it does a few different claims to Mormon prophethood) to go into here. However the short (comparatively) story is that in the 1950s Joel LeBaron founded the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times claiming to be the "One Mighty and Strong" that the founder of the Latter-day Saint movement Joseph Smith had claimed would arrive to put the affairs of the church and the world in order. Many of Joel's brothers, including Verlan and Ervil, quickly accepted his claims. However Ervil hungered for power and eventually split the church. He and his followers, believing Ervil to be the true "One Might and Strong" founded the Church of the Lamb of God.

Ervil couldn't believe that many had failed to accept his claims and had stayed loyal to Joel. Hungry for power and desperate to take over Joel's church Ervil had Joel murdered by his followers. When this act failed to bring many converts (with the Firstborn members being quite understandably rather terrified by the events and scared of Ervil) he ordered an attack on Los Molinos, a Mexican colony of the Firstborn church. Drawing a crowd to fight a fire they had lit, Ervil's followers (hoping to catch Verlan, the new Firstborn leader) opened fire killing 2 and injuring dozens. Growing dissent and "disobedience" within his own church lead Ervil to order the murders of others including his own daughter.

Ervil's downfall came when he planned once more to ensnare Verlan. He decided the only way to draw an understandably paranoid and elusive Verlan into the open was a major funeral he couldn't fail to attend. Rulon Allred, then leader of one of the largest Mormon fundamentalist groups in the USA, was the target. Two women, one Ervil's plural wife Rena, murdered Allred at his place of work but a large police presence at his funeral meant the attempt on Verlan's life was aborted. Rena was acquited of the crime but later admitted it in an autobiography.

Ervil, however, finally faced justice for orchestrating the murder of Rulon Allred and died in prison in 1981. Unfortunately that was not the end of the horrors. Ervil left a list of people (mainly followers who abandoned his church in the aftermath of Allred murder trial) who he wanted "blood atoned" (murdered). And he also left over 50 children among whom a number were willing to carry out his orders. Many have died since (including 4 people all at once in the "4 O'Clock Murders) and some of his children and followers remain on the loose even today.

What on Earth possessed ordinary Americans and Mexicans to turn into cold-blooded killers? A mixture of unquestioning faith and tribalism allowed them to follow the orders of a crazy man preaching discarded Mormon principles. Both books give different insights into what drove Ervil (power, money and attention mainly) and how his followers were completely unable to see that (or, in some cases, embraced it). The events are a warning of where extreme belief can lead us.

Polyamory Now Legal In Utah

I wrote last year about the Brown's of "Sister Wives" fame and their campaign to end Utah's regressive laws on "religious cohabitation".

Utah has, I'm sure you'll know, a long and complicated relationship with both the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and polygamy. In the 19th century polygamy was a central tenet of the LDS Church and they played a cat and mouse game with federal authorities to keep the "Principle" alive in Utah. By the 20th century the federal authorities had won and the LDS Church gave up the "Principle" in order for Utah and the church itself to commence normal relations within the Union.

By the middle of the 20th century the LDS Church was busy rebranding itself and, in so doing, sort to ever further distance itself from its polygamous past. It did this with the help of Utah state authorities and passed, in 1973, a law which banned living with more than one person as if you were married.

“A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.”

Not only did this allow authorities to intervene in some cases of abuse among fundamentalist Mormons, it also became a rod to beat those who were causing harm to no one else. A couple of years ago the Brown family themselves fled their beloved Utah home and settled in Las Vegas in order to avoid jail for the adult members and family separation.



Now the Brown's have won a victory that will allow others of their faith to practice non-legally binding plural marriage without fear. This is absolutely fantastic news, marking another step forward for freedom. It may be appealed however so fingers crossed this ruling is a keeper.

As predicted last year Lawrence v. Texas (which ended US state's anti-sodomy laws in 2003) played its part:

“Consensual sexual privacy is the touchstone of the rational basis review analysis in this case, as in Lawrence.”

Gay rights lead to human rights. Good times!

Polyamory Is On The March Again In The Americas

Polyamory (or polygamy as the media prefers) is back in the news again. Three people have managed to get a civil union approved by a Brazilian notary. Rather puts paid to the slippery slope argument of anti-marriage equality folks, it is their (suddenly beloved) civil partnerships they need to be careful of!

Sadly, rather than prompting a discussion on legal protections for "unconventional" (as if any relationship is conventional) relationships, it has unleashed the fear and loathing of the Brazilian Christian community. I know it is to be expected but I am still always somewhat taken aback at the level of disapproval some busybodies express for the lives of others.

This comes as the Brown family, of "Sister Wives" fame, prepare to launch a law suit to have the rather regressive laws of Utah overturned. Full disclosure: I love "Sister Wives". It is a touching, interesting and amusing look at a way of life that is outside of my personal experience. Plus the four wives are hilarious, intelligent and strong. I love them all.

The case for polyamory in Utah is immensely complicated. As you, Dear Constant Reader, know I have a fascination with the history of the Latter-day Saint movement. It is compelling stuff. The baggage of that history, of their embracing of polygyny, of the persecution they suffered for it and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' eventual surrender of that practice hangs over the heads of those who continue to practice "The Principle" today. And, at the same time, the actions of a large number of groups and individuals who have (or had) polygynous relationships bring a nasty taste to the mere mention of polygamy. Domestic abuse, child abuse, benefit "fraud" (it's complicated....) and quite a number of other issues continue to occur in many of the Mormon fundamentalist groups. However I think it is clear polyamory doesn't make people bad and the issues that lead to the problems described above are not going to just suddenly occur because two women live with a man. There are deeper problems within those communities that need to be faced but they won't be until everyone moves beyond "POLYGAMY IS EVIL!!"

In Utah the argument is not about legal recognition. It is about simply being allowed to live AS a married couple with someone (not as a legal married couple) when one is already legally married. That is why instead of using marriage equality as an example, the Browns are focussing more on Lawrence v. Texas. Drawing parallels with (or even laying blame on) the marriage equality movement is a tad simplistic. In the USA gay people can now live together as a couple but in many places polyamorous people can't. In Utah the fight for polygyny really is a fight for freedom.

Polyamorous marriages and civil unions prompt dismay not just from spiteful religious people hellbent on forcing everyone to live how they want them to live, but also from more thoughtful and respectful commentators. They bring to light many of the issues some of us have with the way Government's deal with relationship rights and the control the Government has over our personal affairs. The way marriage is set up makes legal polyamorous marriage nigh impossible. And that is why I find polyamory so utterly fascinating. If same-sex marriage will open up marriage to everyone, polyamory might be the thing that finally forces the Government out of marriage completely. It is unlikely to be an issue here in the UK for quite some time (and the Coalition is working on closing down loopholes recognising foreign polyamorous marriages) but it is going to be interesting to watch where the battles in Utah and the coming one in Brazil (as the forces of conformity try desperately to claw back control) take us.

I set out my agenda two years ago. Personal freedom to make relationship contracts is the goal. If same-sex marriage will bring equality, polyamorous marriage might well bring us all liberty.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Dangers Of Marriage Equality

For many years I was single-minded in raising the profile of marriage equality. I never had the luxury of stopping and reviewing the wider implications to my world view as there just weren't that many people interested in getting past the "But why do we need it?" argument.

Now the campaign has moved beyond me and better campaigners are heading the charge. I no longer need to spend time writing to people, getting media attention on the issue or arguing with opponents. I now have the time to sit back, watch what happens and finally see the wood for the trees.

And I am concerned.

I've always been someone with sympathy for "unconventional people" (an awful phrase and I apologise for using it but you know what I'm saying). I believe, fundamentally, that our society needs constant reinvention and improvement and unconventional people and their lifestyles are, in my opinion, the people pushing the boundaries of our existence. And I despise bullying of others just because they are different. Basically, I oppose conservative social attitudes with a passion.

I suppose, given how conservative an institution marriage is, that I shouldn't be surprised that conservatism is rearing its ugly head in the marriage equality campaigns. I like to think it's just "situational conservatism" used as a pragmatic way of winning the argument. But when have I ever liked pragmatism? I couldn't support those who misled Parliament about opposing marriage *cough* Chris Bryant *cough* during the civil partnership debates, and I won't support those opposing other people's way of lives, just to advance marriage equality, now.

It's enough to make me concerned that naysayers like Mark Simpson and Julie Bindel may have a point. Are we at risk of losing something special as we gain something conventional?

I think it is a great risk, but I also think their views ignore the dilemmas of others and are, in their own way, deeply conservative. Conservative in that it favours preserving the status quo over reforming it. And the others they ignore include the troubles transgender people face under our current separate systems. So whilst I think there is a danger, I also think that in not pushing for marriage equality we risk harming others. And that will not stand.

I've always been clear marriage, as it currently exists, isn't what I want in my vision of the perfect future. But I believe it is important to fight for marriage equality now to even out some of the cruel and perverse consequences of our current systems (especially on transgendered people, I've always been clear it is their predicament that is my number one issue with how things are). But that doesn't mean I will stop defending polyamorous relationships nor that I won't be less than honest that I find some arguments in favour of legalising incest compelling. It might make my position open to easy attack by authoritarian haters but that is another risk I am willing to take to avoid being a hypocrite.

I refuse to compromise on my belief that everyone has the right to live their own lives, free from the oppressive conformity of society. And marriage equality is just one step in a greater battle and, indeed, just the start of the slippery slope. There's nothing wrong with progress when it's done to strengthen our liberty. 

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist