snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Urban Legends » Religion » Mormon wives on welfare

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Mormon wives on welfare
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 505 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Comment: Is it true that Mormon men who practice polygamy only support one
wife (the one they are legally married to), and that the other wives (not
legal wives but married through the church) and their children are usually
all on welfare? I have heard a rumor that in some predominately Mormon
towns, up to 75 % of the population is on welfare.

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Errata
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Errata   E-mail Errata   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Mainstream mormons don't practice polygamy, only little offshoot cults. Within those polygamy cults, welfare fraud is a major issue. But it would have to be a pretty small, remote town for those people to make up 75% of the population.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
mnotr2
Jingle Bell Hock


Icon 1 posted      Profile for mnotr2   E-mail mnotr2   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
If there are men in Utah or elsewhere that are practicing polygamy, they are not Mormon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) outlawed the practice in 1890, and it is grounds for excommunication.
Official Declaration
There are several offshoot groups in Utah, Arizona and elsewhere, however, that still practice polygamy. As they can only have one marriage registered, the rest of their "wives" are single mothers according to the State. Some groups use this loophole to collect welfare. These groups usually live in isolated communities, and there may be some of those communities that have welfare rates that high.

Please do not confuse these groups with the LDS church.

ETA: Spanked by Errata.

--------------------
Infinite goodness is creating a being you know, in advance, is going to complain.
Captain Billy Cutshaw

Posts: 582 | From: Germany | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Rhiandmoi
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Rhiandmoi   E-mail Rhiandmoi   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I am reading a book called "Under the Banner of Heaven" that addresses these polygamy cults and their problems. According to the book there are small towns where nearly everyone is a polygamist and there are is rampant welfare abuse, police corruption and all sorts of other problems. Right now I am drawing a blank as to the names of some of the towns.
ETA: http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html

--------------------
I think that hyperbole is the single greatest factor contributing to the decline of society. - My friend Pat.

What is .02 worth?

Posts: 8745 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Darth Credence
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Darth Credence     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, if you ask the polygamists in Utah what religion they are, they will certainly tell you they are Mormon. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does practice polygamy - and saying that they are not Mormon is akin to saying that Orthodox Jewish are not Jewish. The FLDS Church is the same as the LDS in all substantive ways, with the exception of polygamy. When the LDS Church eliminated polygamy in order for Utah to be admitted to the US, there were still groups of polygamist Mormons. The LDS church excommunicated several groups of polygamists, who the formed the FLDS church under the guidance of John Barlow, who the deemed the true prophet of Mormonism.
The towns that do fit the description of rampant welfare abuse are Hildale, Utah and Colorado City, Arizona.

--------------------
Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can save your friends.

Posts: 262 | From: Salt Lake City, UT | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
pinqy
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 1 posted      Profile for pinqy   E-mail pinqy   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does practice polygamy - and saying that they are not Mormon is akin to saying that Orthodox Jewish are not Jewish.
I would disagree. Ok, I am disagreeing. "Mormon," without qualification, is taken to mean a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Since the LDS have banned polygamy, polygamists cannot properly be considered "Mormon" any more than Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox can be considered "Catholic." The mainstream holds the rights to the name and determination of who gets to claim it. Mel Gibson's father claims to be Catholic, but because he does not accept Vatican II or the authority of the current Pope, he is not Catholic according to the Catholic church.

"Jewish" is different for several reasons. Because Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity, being Jewish has a broader meaning than doctrine. Taking into account the fact that there have long been different sects of Judaism, who is considered a Jew is substantially broader than who is considered a Mormon or a Catholic or a Jehovah's Witness.

pinqy

--------------------
Don't Forget!
Winter Solstice Hanukkah Christmas Kwanzaa & Gurnenthar's Ascendance Are Coming!

Posts: 8671 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
lioness
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for lioness         Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
I am reading a book called "Under the Banner of Heaven" that addresses these polygamy cults and their problems. According to the book there are small towns where nearly everyone is a polygamist and there are is rampant welfare abuse, police corruption and all sorts of other problems. Right now I am drawing a blank as to the names of some of the towns.
ETA: http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html

I've read that book as well, very interesting. I'm not LDS, and I do realize that these cultists are not members of the mainstream church. In saying that, however, there is that section of scriptures that says that polygamy is necessary for salvation.

As long as that's in the mainstream Mormon scriptures, there will be polygamy cults. Plus, there's a loophole where if a Mormon couple marries in the temple, and the wife dies or they divorce, the husband could be married for eternity to someone else. A Mormon womman who is divorced or widowed cannot easily marry someone else in the temple without getting a temple cancellation, something that is rarely done, if ever. I personally knew Mormons in that situation, one widow was being invited to singles events as she and her husband were not married in the temple as they weren't active. She's hoping that when she's gone, someone would do her temple wedding for her.

Posts: 223 | From: Long Beach, CA | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Seaboe Muffinchucker
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 218 posted      Profile for Seaboe Muffinchucker     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
These people aren't really polygamists, they are polygynists. If they were polygamists they would believe a woman could have more than one husband, as well as that a man can have more than one wife.

Seaboe

--------------------
Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me

Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
gnome
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for gnome   E-mail gnome   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Regarding the welfare issue... if someone happens to be living with several single moms... if they are not legally married, is it a "loophole" for her to collect welfare? One person can't hope to support several women on one job... if she wasn't living in his house collecting welfare, why wouldn't she be collecting welfare elsewhere? I'm not sure how the state is getting cheated here.

This is aside the other potential problems with multiple unofficial "wives"... I just am trying to figure out why it's considered a welfare cheat.

Posts: 418 | From: New Port Richey, FL | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Errata
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Errata   E-mail Errata   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seaboe.Muffinchucker:
These people aren't really polygamists, they are polygynists. If they were polygamists they would believe a woman could have more than one husband, as well as that a man can have more than one wife.

Seaboe

A polygynist is a polygamist. The term is applicable, just not as specific. Something can be described as a member of a superset category even if a subset category more precisely defines it. In common English usage, one man with several women is the combination we're most familiar with, so polygamy heavily implies polygyny.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Errata
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Errata   E-mail Errata   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gnome:
Regarding the welfare issue... if someone happens to be living with several single moms... if they are not legally married, is it a "loophole" for her to collect welfare? One person can't hope to support several women on one job... if she wasn't living in his house collecting welfare, why wouldn't she be collecting welfare elsewhere? I'm not sure how the state is getting cheated here.

This is aside the other potential problems with multiple unofficial "wives"... I just am trying to figure out why it's considered a welfare cheat.

Welfare is based on household income, not individual. It usually has provisions that are specifically designed to prevent unmarried women living in a couple from receiving welfare. There are a lot of people out there living together but not married. There would be a big disincentive to actually getting married if you could be supported by an unmarried partner and supported by the state as long as you didn't marry.
Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Seaboe Muffinchucker
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 218 posted      Profile for Seaboe Muffinchucker     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Errata:
quote:
Originally posted by Seaboe.Muffinchucker:
These people aren't really polygamists, they are polygynists. If they were polygamists they would believe a woman could have more than one husband, as well as that a man can have more than one wife.

Seaboe

A polygynist is a polygamist. The term is applicable, just not as specific. Something can be described as a member of a superset category even if a subset category more precisely defines it. In common English usage, one man with several women is the combination we're most familiar with, so polygamy heavily implies polygyny.
Errata, there was some discussion of this in another thread. Basically, it is my opinion that if each member of the unit is not equally a spouse to the other members, it is not polygamy (i.e., if the group is a husband and two wives, the wives are spouses to each other as well as to the husband), it is either polygyny or polyandry. The fact that polygamy is the more inclusive term also makes it less precise and therefore, IMO, less desirable. That grammatically and mathmatically it fits doesn't make it correct for this usage. YMMV, of course.

Seaboe

--------------------
Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me

Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
MsBeaverhausen
Deck the Malls


Icon 218 posted      Profile for MsBeaverhausen   E-mail MsBeaverhausen   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Errata:
Welfare is based on household income, not individual. It usually has provisions that are specifically designed to prevent unmarried women living in a couple from receiving welfare. There are a lot of people out there living together but not married. There would be a big disincentive to actually getting married if you could be supported by an unmarried partner and supported by the state as long as you didn't marry.

That is why there are a lot of people not married. This was something I used to do, Medicaid fraud. It was irritating the amounts of Women on welfare while they were living with their SO. I know out of the many cases I investigated only a handful of recipients were legit.

--------------------
I love Jesus... PURPLE JESUS !!!

Posts: 248 | From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Cowboy Joe
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cowboy Joe   E-mail Cowboy Joe   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MsBeaverhausen:
quote:
Originally posted by Errata:
Welfare is based on household income, not individual. It usually has provisions that are specifically designed to prevent unmarried women living in a couple from receiving welfare. There are a lot of people out there living together but not married. There would be a big disincentive to actually getting married if you could be supported by an unmarried partner and supported by the state as long as you didn't marry.

That is why there are a lot of people not married. This was something I used to do, Medicaid fraud. It was irritating the amounts of Women on welfare while they were living with their SO. I know out of the many cases I investigated only a handful of recipients were legit.
What about people who are not on assistance but still choose not to marry? You make it sound as if the whole reason for unmarried couples is that they are somehow cheating someone. Probably the reason you were sent to investigate was that there was evidence suggesting fraud, which would skew the results you saw.

--------------------
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

Posts: 382 | From: Wyoming | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Errata
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Errata   E-mail Errata   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cowboy Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by MsBeaverhausen:
quote:
Originally posted by Errata:
Welfare is based on household income, not individual. It usually has provisions that are specifically designed to prevent unmarried women living in a couple from receiving welfare. There are a lot of people out there living together but not married. There would be a big disincentive to actually getting married if you could be supported by an unmarried partner and supported by the state as long as you didn't marry.

That is why there are a lot of people not married. This was something I used to do, Medicaid fraud. It was irritating the amounts of Women on welfare while they were living with their SO. I know out of the many cases I investigated only a handful of recipients were legit.
What about people who are not on assistance but still choose not to marry? You make it sound as if the whole reason for unmarried couples is that they are somehow cheating someone. Probably the reason you were sent to investigate was that there was evidence suggesting fraud, which would skew the results you saw.
Well presumably she only investigated people receiving assistance, because there is no way to defraud the system if you aren't making any claims. So the skew isn't that she investigates only people with evidence of fraud but that she investigates only people receiving assistance.

But I believe that most able bodied adults out there, married or not, are not receiving any form of public assistance. So its not the primary reason that people live together without marrying. Its only a reason among the small minority getting welfare.

Posts: 2018 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
MsBeaverhausen
Deck the Malls


Icon 218 posted      Profile for MsBeaverhausen   E-mail MsBeaverhausen   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Errata:
Well presumably she only investigated people receiving assistance, because there is no way to defraud the system if you aren't making any claims. So the skew isn't that she investigates only people with evidence of fraud but that she investigates only people receiving assistance.

But I believe that most able bodied adults out there, married or not, are not receiving any form of public assistance. So its not the primary reason that people live together without marrying. Its only a reason among the small minority getting welfare. [/QB]

This is what I meant, I didn't mean that all unmarried couples chose to be unmarried so they can receive welfare, I meant most welfare recipients (at least the one I investigated) do not get married so they can continue to receive the benefits. I also found that some people were married but lied about still being with their spouse to get benefits.

--------------------
I love Jesus... PURPLE JESUS !!!

Posts: 248 | From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
gnome
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for gnome   E-mail gnome   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Is there a distinction made between someone who is living with another because of a relationship, or just as a living arrangement, say, for rent money? Like if a single mom is renting a room in someone's house.
Posts: 418 | From: New Port Richey, FL | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Will
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Will   E-mail Will   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
I am reading a book called "Under the Banner of Heaven" that addresses these polygamy cults and their problems. According to the book there are small towns where nearly everyone is a polygamist and there are is rampant welfare abuse, police corruption and all sorts of other problems. Right now I am drawing a blank as to the names of some of the towns.
ETA: http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html

Colorado City, Arizona is the name of the main place discussed in the book.
Posts: 300 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Will
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Will   E-mail Will   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rhiandmoi:
I am reading a book called "Under the Banner of Heaven" that addresses these polygamy cults and their problems. According to the book there are small towns where nearly everyone is a polygamist and there are is rampant welfare abuse, police corruption and all sorts of other problems. Right now I am drawing a blank as to the names of some of the towns.
ETA: http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy4.html

Colorado City, Arizona is the name of the main place discussed in the book.
Posts: 300 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
MsBeaverhausen
Deck the Malls


Icon 218 posted      Profile for MsBeaverhausen   E-mail MsBeaverhausen   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by gnome:
Is there a distinction made between someone who is living with another because of a relationship, or just as a living arrangement, say, for rent money? Like if a single mom is renting a room in someone's house.

If you are referring to fraud that I have investigated, you can tell the differences between someone renting a room from a person and co-habitation as a couple. People try to be slick but they do really stupid things that make it obvious.

--------------------
I love Jesus... PURPLE JESUS !!!

Posts: 248 | From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
gnome
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for gnome   E-mail gnome   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MsBeaverhausen:
quote:
Originally posted by gnome:
Is there a distinction made between someone who is living with another because of a relationship, or just as a living arrangement, say, for rent money? Like if a single mom is renting a room in someone's house.

If you are referring to fraud that I have investigated, you can tell the differences between someone renting a room from a person and co-habitation as a couple. People try to be slick but they do really stupid things that make it obvious.
This is interesting to me. I can bet that it's often not that hard to tell--but I'm more interested in the legal distinction. In reality I'm sure that there can be a good deal of ambiguity between someone one is renting from, and someone one is carrying on a relationship with. What is the legal standard that divides one from the other? Is it a financial standard (such as who's paying rent to whom), or is it based on the emotional nature of the relationship? That would seem hard to codify.
Posts: 418 | From: New Port Richey, FL | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Seaboe Muffinchucker
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Seaboe Muffinchucker     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, regardless of the emotional nature of the relationship, if one party is paying the expenses of the other, and the free-loader does not disclose that when applying for aide, that is or can be fraud.

Seaboe

--------------------
Education is not the filling of a hard drive, but the lighting of a bulb. -- Yeats via Esprise Me

Posts: 5562 | From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
gnome
Deck the Malls


Icon 1 posted      Profile for gnome   E-mail gnome   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok... that seems workable. Thanks for satiating my curiosity.
Posts: 418 | From: New Port Richey, FL | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2