01 05 2011 Proceedings Day 15 Polygamy Reference Case

8/7/2019 01 05 2011 Proceedings Day 15 Polygamy Reference Case

1/104

1John Walsh (for FLDS)In chief on qualifications by Mr. Wickett

1 January 5, 20112 Vancouver, B.C.34 (DAY 15)5 (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 10:00 A.M.)67 THE CLERK: In the Supreme Court at Vancouver on this8 5th day of January, 2011, calling the matter9 concerning the constitutionality of section 293 of10 the Criminal Code, My Lord.11 MR. WICKETT: Good morning, My Lord. The witness for12 this morning is Dr. John Walsh. Dr. Walsh, could13 you come up.

1415 JOHN WALSH, a witness,16 called by the FLDS, sworn.1718 THE CLERK: Please state your full name and spell your19 last name for the record.20 THE WITNESS: William John Walsh, W-a-l-s-h.2122 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MR. WICKETT:23 Q Dr. Walsh, you have provided an affidavit in this24 proceeding.25 MR. WICKETT: It is, My Lord, I believe Exhibit 77.26 THE COURT: Yes, thank you.

27 MR. WICKETT:28 Q Dr. Walsh, if you could just have that in front of29 you for a moment, please.30 A Yes, I do.31 Q Thank you. I would like to begin, Dr. Walsh, by32 turning to your CV which is Exhibit A to the33 affidavit. Do you have that in front of you?34 A Yes, I do.35 Q Now, Doctor, you are a scholar in the field of36 religious studies; is that correct?37 A Yes, it is.38 Q Right. Could you explain to His Lordship what the39 study of -- or what religious studies is.40 A Religious studies is normally contrasted with41 theology. Theology is normally the study of42 religion from a dogmatic context, basically that43 which would make a good Catholic -- a Catholic a44 good Catholic, a Mormon a good Mormon and so45 forth. It's normally taught in a school of46 divinity and it trains one for the priesthood or47 some equivalent type of status.


2/104


1 Religious studies is a scientific discipline,2 it's normally a cross-disciplinary degree between3 the humanities and the social sciences, and it4 studies religion from an objective, scientific5 basis and talks about how religion influences6 individuals and groups in their behaviour within7 culture and society.8 Q Thank you. Looking at Exhibit A for a moment,9 Doctor, I'm going to begin at the bottom to deal10 with your education. The bottom bullet point11 under "education and post doctoral training." Do12 you have that?13 A Yes, I do.

14 Q You have a bachelor of science from the State15 University of New York in business?16 A That's correct.17 Q Also an MBA in business from Brigham Young18 University?19 A It that's correct.20 Q Above that you've made reference to the LDS church21 education system, seminary training program.22 Could you please explain to His Lordship what that23 is about.24 A The church education system or CES is a formal25 church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which26 is the mainstream LDS church located in Salt Lake,27 Utah. The seminary training program is run by CES28 to train seminary teachers to teach high school29 religion and eventually institute teachers to30 teach college level religion courses to the31 members of the church.32 Q And you're a graduate of that seminary training33 program?34 A Yes, I am.35 Q Above that you make reference to the LDS Institute36 of Religion, Arizona State University. Could you37 explain to His Lordship what that is about please?38 A I attended the LDS Institute of Religion at39 Arizona State University, and I also took religion40 classes at Brigham Young University. I'm not sure

41 how the semester hour or quarterly hour system42 works in Canada, but in the United States a43 full-time college student normally takes about 1544 hours per semester or 30 hours per year. So 9045 hours is equivalent approximately to three years46 full-time study in Mormon religion.47 Q Now, these two training programs do not result in


3/104


1 degrees per se, do they?2 A They do not.3 Q And would this training be considered religious4 studies training or theological training?5 A Theological training.6 Q Now, skipping the bullet point above just for the7 moment, and moving to the bullet point above that8 it says you have an MS or Masters of Science from9 Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies. Could you10 explain to His Lordship what that is about?11 A Spertus is an institute located in Chicago. It's12 an accredited college within the United States13 that offers degrees mainly related to Judaism. I

14 received a master of science from that school15 under the advisement of Rabbi Sherwin and my major16 was in Jewish religion.17 Q All right. Following that you obtained a PhD from18 the University of Wales?19 A Correct.20 Q And please describe what your PhD is in, please?21 A My PhD is in religious studies. My dissertation22 was done on the essential theology of Joseph Smith23 who was the first Mormon prophet. Essentially24 what I did was I compared Joseph Smith's theology25 to traditional Christianity and western culture,26 and compared the two, found similarities and27 differences.28 Q Now, dropping back down to the third bullet point29 you've made reference to a post doctoral study at30 the University of Saint Thomas Graduate School of31 Theology. Can you explain to His Lordship what32 that is?33 A Saint Mary's Seminary is where the priests for the34 Roman Catholic church in the Galveston/Houston35 archdiocese under Cardinal DiNardo were trained,36 and basically what I have done is I've sat in with37 the seminarians who are training for the Roman38 Catholic priesthood.39 Q And what is the reason of that?40 A To expand my awareness of other religions, other

41 cultures, so I can do more comparisons with42 Mormonism.43 Q Now, the CV notes that your post doctoral studies44 concluded in 2009. What have you been doing since45 that time?46 A Well, I have been doing that couple of things.47 One is I have been working on a major book. I


4/104


1 hope to have to it published this year. Second,2 I've been doing a lot of litigation consulting,3 some expert witnessing like I'm doing here, but4 also a lot of background information on Mormonism5 to attorneys. And I have done a lot of media6 consultation with various news organizations7 providing background information on Mormonism.8 Q Now, if we just turn over the page on your CV for9 a moment, under "publications and books" you make10 reference to a book at the top there, Mormon11 Mysticism, et cetera. Do you see that?12 A Yes.13 Q That's the body you're currently working on you're

14 expecting to be published in 2011?15 A Yes, that's correct.16 Q And below that is reference to an article that you17 wrote called "Are Jesus and Satan brothers: A18 Short exploration in Mormon Christology." It19 notes that this was to be published in 2011. I20 understand that there's a correction to be made to21 that?22 A Yes, it has been published already in 2010.23 Q In the International Journal of Mormon Studies?24 A That's correct.25 Q And that's a peer reviewed journal?26 A Yes, it's a peer reviewed academic journal.27 Q You have been qualified in the courts of Texas to28 appear as an expert in the field of religious29 studies with a focus on Mormonism; is that30 correct?31 A Yes, I have.32 Q How many times?33 A For two different court cases.34 MR. WICKETT: Okay. Those are my questions, My Lord,35 with respect to qualification. I'm tendering -- I36 understand my friend Mr. Jones has questions on37 qualification, but I'm tendering Dr. Walsh as an38 expert in the field of religious studies with a39 particular focus on Mormonism.40 THE COURT: Is Mr. Jones the only individual?

41 MR. DANAY: I will also have a few questions on42 qualifications.43 THE COURT: Thank you. To be technical we're in a voir44 dire on qualifications then.45 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord.4647


5/104

5John Walsh (for FLDS)Cross-exam on qualifications by Mr. Jones

1 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MR. JONES:2 Q Dr. Walsh, my name is Craig Jones. I represent3 the Attorney General of British Columbia. Mu4 friend Mr. Wicket referred you to your CV and I'm5 just going to ask you some questions for6 qualification on that. But just before I do, if I7 could ask you to turn to page 2 of your affidavit.8 And at paragraph 5 you're just setting out the9 basis of your opinion and you say, "in the10 ordinary course of my education, training and11 professional experience I have become familiar12 with numerous authoritative works" et cetera. And13 I just wanted to explore with you your

14 professional experience that you refer to here as15 distinct from your education and training. Where16 are you employed now, sir?17 A I work as an independent scholar.18 Q You work as an independent scholar.19 A That's correct.20 Q That's your full-time and only employment is it,21 sir?22 A That's correct.23 Q How long have you been doing that?24 A For about two to three years.25 Q And you've mentioned that there was litigation26 consulting as an aspect of that?27 A That's correct.28 Q And is that the sole source of income for you as29 an scholar?30 A It's about the only income I'm receiving right now31 other than investment income. Before I turned32 full time to religious studies I worked in the33 corporate business world and I basically retired34 from there, and so I don't pursue full-time35 employment. I basically pursue research.36 Q And that was at Ford Motor Company, was it, sir?37 A Ford Motor Company among other places.38 Q Turning to your education and post doctoral39 training, my friend took you through it. The40 Masters of Science from the Spertus, that's

41 actually an MSJS degree; is that right? Master of42 Science and Jewish studies?43 A It has been listed that way.44 Q And that was a distance education degree, was it,45 sir?46 A No, I flew from Chicago and attended live seminars47 with the instruction over a period of a number of


6/104


1 years and completed the degree.2 Q But the bulk of it, sir, was distance education,3 wasn't it, that you attended one to two seminars4 per year; isn't that correct?5 A Over several weeks, yes.6 Q And your PhD from the University of Wales7 Lampeter, that was also a distance education8 degree, sir?9 A It was a research degree earned through10 examination, both oral and written. I provided my11 classroom work in Chicago and then I was12 recommended by the faculty in Chicago to be13 accepted as a student in Wales.

14 Q Sorry, but during the time that you were -- after15 you had finished your Masters of Science at16 Chicago and you used that as a basis for entrance17 into the PhD program at the University of Wales,18 so at that point you're studying -- you were19 living in the United States?20 A Correct.21 Q While you were studying at the University of22 Wales?23 A Right. In England the way that PhDs normally work24 is they don't have any classroom requirements at25 all. You would complete a masters degree at an26 institution and then you apply to the PhD program27 where you would be admitted. From that point you28 gain access to all the research facilities that29 you need for your degree, and then you would be30 given a period of two to four years to complete31 your dissertation at which time you would be32 examined by both internal and external examiners.33 Q But it would be normal, wouldn't it, sir, I mean,34 prior to the advent of the internet it would be35 normal to pursue a PhD in England at the English36 university?37 A Depending on where your dissertation has being38 done. For example, if you were doing it in39 Egyptian theology history or theology you might do40 all of your work from Egypt. In my case mine was

41 done on Mormonism and all of the resources I42 needed for my dissertation were located here in43 the United States.44 Q Why Wales, sir? Why, if I may ask, why study --45 why choose to pursue your thesis on Mormonism46 under a supervisor whose sole expertise was in47 Jewish studies?


7/104


1 A Well, Rabbi Cohen Sherwin has expertise in many2 different areas of religious studies. He's a very3 well known, well published scholar. I chose the4 University of Wales because there were not many5 universities -- in fact, for Mormon studies there6 were none, that offer a PhD in Mormon studies7 within the United States.8 Q But they don't offer a PhD in Mormon studies9 either in Wales?10 A But in order to do the dissertation that I wanted11 to do, which was on the theology of Joseph Smith,12 they were willing to sponsor that dissertation. I13 had to submit a dissertation proposal to the

14 university. Within the United States most of the15 schools that were willing to come -- to sponsor16 any kind of dissertation whatsoever on Mormonism17 were only willing to do it from a history18 perspective. Basically achieve a PhD in history,19 and I wanted an a PhD in religious studies.20 Q Do you know, of the reviewers of your PhD thesis,21 one of whom I understand was your masters22 supervisor Dr. Sherwin, were there any of the23 reviewers of your PhD thesis that had any24 expertise in Mormon studies?25 A Dr. Sherwin was not a formal reviewer of my26 dissertation.27 Q Oh, then I'm sorry, he misinformed me.28 A He was a proofreader. I asked him to review it on29 an informal personal basis because I had been a30 student of his, but the university assigned31 internal and external examiners.32 Q And my question was whether any of them were33 experts in the field of Mormon studies?34 A They were experts in the general field of35 religious studies.36 Q Like Rabbi Cohn-Sherbok?37 A He was my supervisor. He was not one of my38 examiners. They had independent examiners is the39 way they do it over there.40 Q I see. So getting back to your professional

41 experience, sir, I'm at paragraph 5. You said42 that -- that that was one of the sources of your43 knowledge. Is that professional experience44 limited to the consulting work you've done on45 litigation in the United States?46 A No, it's also related to my experience in the47 training programs offered by the LDS church.


8/104


1 Q Oh. I see. So when you were teaching for -- or2 when you were training for that -- see, because it3 says in the ordinary course of your education,4 training and professional experience I thought5 those were distinct things.6 As far as your professional experience goes,7 I mean, we've heard from a lot of expert8 witnesses. Most of them employed full-time by the9 university. That's not your case I understand.10 I'm just trying to get a picture for His Lordship11 about what your professional experience is as12 opposed to being a student. I understand you're a13 dedicated student, but as far as you're

14 professional experience goes you've consulted for15 litigation?16 A Correct.17 Q In the United States. Always on the side of the18 FLDS?19 A No. Really for a number of attorneys who've20 represented different aspects of Mormonism, not21 always related to the FLDS, not always in favour22 of the FLDS. I've been willing to work with23 anyone who has an interest Mormonism and feels24 they need expertise to be able to do their own25 jobs better. Most of my work has not been really26 witnessing at all, it's really been mainly27 providing background information to people who do28 not understand Mormonism and especially don't29 understand Mormon Fundamentalism, and kind of just30 explain to them what, you know, the different31 groups are, what they do and how they do it. And32 then because of that work and in a couple of cases33 because of reasons I guess known best to the34 attorneys they have asked me to testify.35 Q Thank you. Turning back if I can to your CV, sir.36 The expert witness work that you've done, that was37 in two cases as I understand it, the Keat case was38 one of them, and what was the other?39 A It was the original child custody case in40 Eldorado, Texas. And I think it was in April of

41 2006, if I recall.42 Q I see. Did you also provide testimony in the43 prosecution of Michael Emack?44 A I did not, no.45 Q Next down on symposiums and lectures, sir, it46 appears that the only university lecture you've47 been given is at a university local to you, is


9/104


1 this right? The Rice University in Houston?2 A Correct.3 Q And what was the subject of that? "Mormon4 mysticism, mythology and magic"? That didn't have5 anything to do with the FLDS per se?6 A No, that's about fundamental Mormon religion7 and -- but not specifically about the FLDS or any8 of the cases. I was asked about questions about9 the cases we had down in Texas but that was not10 the substance of the seminar.11 Q So my colleague has passed me a note. With12 respect to the Emack prosecution that I'd asked13 you about whether you provided evidence in that

14 case, it's not true, you say, sir, that you15 provided an affidavit in support of the petition16 to strike the polygamy charge in the Emack17 prosecution?18 A I'm not sure. I may have. I've dealt with a lot19 of different cases. A couple of times I've been20 asked to provide affidavits. But I've only21 testified in court on two occasions. This would22 be my third time to testify in court.23 Q But you may have provided the affidavit, but you24 don't recall whether it was used?25 A Correct.26 Q Over the page if I may, sir, to your publications27 and books. The first one, Mormonism Mysticism,28 Mythology and Magic, that's your forthcoming book29 that you've referred to?30 A That's correct.31 Q The second one, "Are Jesus and Satan Brothers: A32 short exploration of Mormon Christology" now33 published in the International Journal of Mormon34 Studies which you referred to as peer reviewed35 journal. Safe to say, sir, that's not a leading36 journal in the field. Is that fair37 characterization?38 A I'm not sure that would be a fair39 characterization. It's one of the first attempts40 to actually have an academic journal devoted

41 towards Mormon studies. Mormon studies is a very42 specialized field and that's why, for example,43 there are no PhD programs in Mormon studies within44 the United States to my knowledge.45 Q Well, this is a journal in fact, isn't it sir,46 that is run by Mr. David Morris in England who is47 himself a student at the University of Chichester.


10/104


1 Is that your understanding?2 A He coordinates things from my understanding. It's3 run by several different people from several4 different universities and they have the standard5 board of reviewers and so forth.6 Q He's the head editor, isn't it, sir? The master7 head editor?8 A I would have to check. If you say he is I will9 believe you.10 Q And in fact, the journal has only been running11 since 2008?12 A Correct.13 Q And your publication is in the third issue of

14 that; is that right?15 A M'mm-hmm.16 Q And yet you refer to this as one of the leading17 journals in the field?18 A No, I was saying -- the way that you asked the19 question implied that it was not.20 Q Yes.21 A I'm saying that I don't know that it's not. There22 aren't really any leading journals in the field23 that are academic journals in Mormon studies.24 Q I see. And that's your sole peer reviewed25 publication; is that right, sir?26 A Yes, that's correct.27 Q And you've been engaged in the study for 18 years?28 A That's correct.29 Q When you testified, sir, in the 14-day adversary30 hearing in Texas in April of 2008, that was with31 respect to the Yearning For Zion raid?32 A Yes.33 Q And the -- that was the hearing to determine what34 would be done, at least in that timeframe, with35 the children that had been taken into the custody36 of Texas Child Protection Services?37 A Yes, that's correct.38 Q And that was the first time you had ever appeared39 in a courtroom?40 A Yes, it is.

41 Q And did you familiarize yourself with the findings42 of the Texas Child Protection Services with43 respect to the Yearning For Zion raid after the44 proceedings in which you were involved?45 A I'm aware of the number of issues in the raid. I46 wouldn't call myself extremely knowledgeable about47 every aspect of the findings. That wasn't my


11/104


1 purpose in testifying.2 Q Did you ever read their findings?3 A I have read summary reports of some of their4 findings. I don't know if I read final reports.5 Q Okay. Just to cover off a point, sir, quite often6 on the academic resumes we see a long list of7 scholarships, awards, bursaries, research grants,8 that sort of thing. Have you ever received any of9 those?10 A No.11 Q Now, of course, sir, you're not a member of the12 FLDS?13 A No, I'm not.

14 Q And no member of your family is a member of the15 FLDS?16 A No, they are not.17 Q And, in fact, you've said, sir, that you're less18 knowledgeable about the FLDS daily practices than19 you were about their theology; is that right?20 A That would be correct.21 Q And with respect to the depth of your study of the22 FLDS as opposed to mainstream Mormonism, I think23 as you refer to it, or the LDS, has that been an24 18-year process as well, or is that more recent?25 A It was about 20 years ago when I first became26 acquainted with Mormonism in general and 18 to 2027 years ago when I became acquainted with movement28 known as Mormon Fundamentalism. And since that29 time I've taken an interest in the prophet Joseph30 Smith specifically and all of the groups that are31 interested in him I've been interested in. And32 that's why I did my dissertation on Joseph Smith.33 Q And you've referred in other testimony previously34 to your knowledge being based on your readings,35 but also on interviews that you've conducted with?36 A Discussions that I've had with various members of37 various Mormon fundamentalist groups.38 Q And how many persons have you interviewed?39 A Oh, 20 years, 50 to 100.40 Q And do you approach that methodically? Do you

41 take notes? Do you --42 A No. Just general awareness of interacting with43 people within in this field, asking questions,44 talking about them, asking them what they read,45 what they do, why do they do the things that they46 do.47 Q And you're not referring to the sociologist or


12/104


1 ethnographer or anything like that?2 A That's correct. I'm a religious studies scholar,3 not a sociologist.4 Q If I were to put it to you, sir, that you have no5 expertise in the practical effects of polygamy or6 the harms associated with it would you agree with7 me there?8 A I would not, no.9 Q You wouldn't agree with me?10 A I would not agree with you.11 Q You have expertise in the harms associated with12 polygamy?13 A I've read a lot of literature about maintaining

14 that there are harms of polygamy and some15 literature that maintains there are not, so I have16 read a lot of literature about that. It is not my17 primary area of research but it would not be fair18 to say I have no expertise whatsoever in that.19 Q But you have no training on interpreting those20 things. You're not a sociologist?21 A No.22 Q You're not a psychologist?23 A I'm not a psychologist.24 Q Your religious studies background does not prepare25 you to make any judgments with respect to --26 A With some it does, I mean, because we study how27 religion does affect sociology among groups and28 people and how religion does affect the psychology29 of individuals, but it's not the same as being a30 psychologist or a sociologist. But it's also not31 the same as being a theologian as compared to32 someone that doesn't look at something objectively33 and scientifically.34 Q So if someone were to consider your testimony with35 respect to the harms of -- the psychological harms36 of polygamy as compared to a psychologist you37 would defer to the psychologist I presume.38 A It depends on the psychologist I suppose, but I39 would think that a psychologist would be better40 equipped as a general rule than a religious

41 studies person to talk about psychology.42 Q And same with a sociologist to talk about43 sociological method and...44 A Correct. And in a religious studies fellow that45 I'm prepared to talk about religious studies than46 a psychologist or a sociologist.47 Q Sir, I'm going to show you a document that I


13/104


1 believe you wrote. It's in a binder that we've2 prepared, and I'll hand out some copies. And this3 is a document that you'll find at tab 4 and it's4 called "What is the Purpose of Plural Marriage."5 A Okay.6 Q Have you found it, sir?7 A I did, yes.8 Q And did you write this?9 A I can't say for absolutely sure. This -- I wrote10 a number of things years ago, I mean, 15 years ago11 that were kind of ad hoc essays on different12 websites and things like that. And this may be13 something I wrote, but I would have to look at it

14 because it would be 15 years old.15 Q Okay. Well, I'm going to take you through it.16 A Sure.17 Q And perhaps that will refresh your memory, sir.18 This is called "What is the Purpose of Plural19 Marriage." It purports to be written by a W. John20 Walsh.21 A M'mm-hmm.22 Q It starts off, "Latter-day Saints men can23 presently be married to only one living woman at a24 time." It talks a little bit about the theology25 and quotes from the Book of Mormon and then the26 doctrine of covenants. Then says "obviously" --27 I'm right in the middle of the page -- "a greater28 number of children leads to greater opportunities29 to help others along the path to eternal life."30 It then goes on to say, "unfortunately the number31 of righteous women always outnumbers number of32 righteous men even in celestial kingdom." It33 quotes from Brigham Young, the second prophet, as34 I understand it, of Mormonism.35 And then it says:3637 From a mortal perspective, this means that38 when a man is limited to only one wife some39 women will have the choice of marrying a40 worldly, carnal man or remaining unwed. If

41 men were eternally limited to only one wife42 each some women would never have the43 opportunity for exultation.4445 It goes on:4647 Plural marriages remedy these penalties by


14/104


1 enabling every women the opportunity to have2 a righteous husband, enjoy the blessings of3 motherhood and fill the measure of her4 creation. The extraordinary sacrifices5 necessary upon all the participants in the6 practice of plural marriage also helps to7 instill greater Christlike love within their8 characters. Since we're talking about9 eternal perspective issues like mortal,10 medical and fertility problems do not concern11 us. In eternity we will have perfect12 bodies --13

14 Et cetera et cetera. Is this ringing a bell, sir?15 A I recognize it as dogmatic Mormon doctrine.16 Q You don't recognize it?17 THE COURT: I beg your pardon, I missed that, sir.18 THE WITNESS: I recognize it as dogmatic Mormon19 doctrine. I don't remember if I specifically20 wrote that, but I recognize the principles that21 are talked about.22 MR. JONES:23 Q Okay. Well, let's go down where it perhaps takes24 on a more personal perspective, and this might25 light some bulbs.26 The first two complete paragraphs on page 2 I27 presume are also dogmatic Mormon doctrine. The28 first one says this:2930 First, as mentioned above, since the number31 of righteous women always outnumbers the32 number of righteous men this means even more33 women would be unable to procure a righteous34 husband if some women had more than one.35 Second, it would not help God raise up36 righteous seed, which was noted above as the37 purpose of plural marriage. Common sense38 tells us that a woman with several husbands39 will not have any more children than a woman40 with only one husband. On the other hand, a

41 man with several wives will have more42 children than a man with only one wife. It43 is the natural order of things. For example,44 it would not be unusual for a man with five45 wives to have 25 children. On the other46 hand, it would be somewhat difficult for one47 woman to duplicate this effort regardless of


15/104


1 how many husbands she acquired.2 If sexual gratification were the primary3 purpose of marriage and sex (i.e. Satan's4 perspective) then a women having multiple5 husbands would be the preferred method from a6 biological perspective. On the other hand,7 as noted above, if the primary purpose of8 marriage and sex is forming families and9 rearing children, then the Lord's plan is the10 most efficient way, i.e. most children per11 husband.1213 And that would be dogmatic Mormonism, as you

14 referred to it?15 A Right. This would be the traditional explanation16 of how Mormons explain and just justify polygamy.17 Q Okay. I'll continue.1819 Occasionally --2021 It says.2223 -- I have met people, both men and women, who24 have objected to the sacrifices required by25 plural marriage. To put it simply, many26 women don't look forward to sharing their27 husbands emotionally, spiritually or28 physically. Many men don't look forward to29 supporting multiple families emotionally,30 spiritually or physically. To help people31 understand the goodness of plural marriage I32 have used a simple technique that almost33 always works.3435 And then we have a couple of scripts.36 A M'mm-hmm.37 Q The first one is for women, and it has two38 characters, "woman" and the "responder." And the39 responder I presume is you, because you're40 referring to this as the technique that almost

41 always works for you.42 For women, the woman says this:4344 I hate plural marriage and I will never45 accept it.4647 You respond:


16/104


12 Let me ask you a question. You are close to3 your sister, are you not?45 Woman:67 Yes, we grew up together and now that we are8 grown we love to call and visit one another.910 You:1112 What if your sister were in a situation in13 which she had no hope of a righteous marriage

14 partner unless she were to live the law of15 plural marriage. The only way she could16 enjoy the blessings of marriage and children17 would be if she was taken as a plural wife.18 Would you let her live single knowing that19 she wants marriage and family while enjoying20 your only marriage and children?21 Furthermore, would you stand in the way of22 her being sealed for eternity to a righteous23 man and risk her marrying a man who is24 faithless and lose her exultation, or would25 you change your mind about plural marriage26 and let her marry your husband?2728 The woman says:2930 Well, I would hate to watch her suffer. I31 love her too much for that. And I would feel32 terrible if she married out of the covenant33 because I refuse to let her marry my husband.34 I guess we have such a good relationship that35 I would not mind so much under those36 circumstances.3738 You say:3940 Since you can see that plural marriage would

41 be acceptable in some circumstances what42 makes other circumstances different? What if43 your best friend were in that same situation44 instead of your sister? Could you accept45 plural marriage to help your best friend46 receive these important blessings?47


17/104


1 Woman:23 I love my best friend too. It wouldn't be so4 bad to have her in my household. We could5 have so much fun together. I guess that6 would be okay too. But I wouldn't just do it7 for anybody.89 You say:1011 Why would you draw that line? You know that12 people asked to live the principle of plural13 marriage are righteous people, so you know

14 your husband's plural wife would not be15 wicked, she would be trying to live the16 gospel of Jesus Christ. Should not all of17 your gospel sisters be truly loved as sisters18 and friends? Could you let some women suffer19 and deny them marriage and children while20 letting others enjoy the blessings you enjoy?21 What does that say about your own Christ-like22 feelings and behaviours?2324 Let me ask you again, sir, is this ringing a bell?25 A Not specifically. As I mentioned 15 years ago,26 many years before I got my PhD, I wrote hundreds27 and hundreds of different things relating to28 Mormonism as a new Mormon convert to the29 mainstream LDS church, not to the FLDS. And as30 part of that I may have written this document; I31 may not have written this document. What people32 have done over the last 15 years have taken things33 that I have written and they've edited them and34 added to them off of the internet.35 Q Sir --36 A So I can't tell you for sure but I would be happy37 to talk about you about any of the items or38 principles or concepts in here.39 Q Well, let me ask you this, sir: Is this a -- is40 this a simple technique that has almost always

41 worked for you?42 A Well, I've never really had discussions with43 people. This looks to me similar to the44 missionary pamphlets that are put out as far as45 how to rote discussions with people about various46 gospel principles. So I don't recall writing47 that. I may have. I don't know.


18/104


1 Q Would you be embarrassed if you had?2 A I would be embarrassed by anything I wrote before3 I got my PhD, and anything I wrote in my early 20s4 as reflecting what I would write today.5 Q Is that a yes?6 A Yes.7 Q The document goes on to page 3 to have another8 script for a recalcitrant man who says he could9 never accept plural marriage. The whole idea he10 would say is repugnant to him. And then this11 Socratic dialogue, this wise Socratic dialogue12 continues, in which the author which may or may13 not have been you as I understand it, persuades

14 the man to accept plural marriage in his own life.15 It says this after on page 4:1617 If you are someone who objects to plural18 marriage then I would challenge you to search19 within yourselves. There is no doubt in my20 mind that your attitude toward plural21 marriage will determine your place in22 eternity.2324 Do you recall writing that, sir?25 A I don't. I stand by my same answer. I don't26 recall if I wrote this document or not, 15, 1827 years ago. I really don't know.28 Q If you did write it, sir, is it your testimony it29 was 15 or 18 years ago?30 A Yes. It would be the time period in which -- the31 last time that I wrote anything related to this I32 think was at least 11 or 12 years ago, meaning33 anything pre-PhD. So out of the hundreds of34 documents I wrote all of it is at least a decade35 old and all of it not more than 2 decades old36 because I wasn't familiar with Mormonism more than37 20 years ago.38 Q Would you embrace that statement today? "There is39 no doubt in my mind that your attitude toward40 plural marriage will determine your place in

41 eternity"?42 A I would not embrace it in the form that it's43 given. I would be happy to share with you my44 personal faith if that's what we would like to45 talk about.46 Q Well, what I'm really interested in is your views47 on polygamy, sir, because it appears to me that


19/104


1 the author of this document, which may or may not2 have been you, is a big cheerleader for polygamy?3 A The document is advocating traditional LDS views4 -- not FLDS views, but the traditional LDS view of5 polygamy.6 Q And your view as a scholar?7 A Not as a scholar, no.8 Q No. The next document, sir, is one entitled "Why9 did the Church Abandon Polygamy" and that's at10 tab 3. And maybe you could look this through and11 see if you have any recollection about writing12 this. It's from the website, sir, all about13 Mormons, www.mormons.Org. Is that your website,

14 sir?15 A No the mormons.org website is presently maintained16 by the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints in17 Salt Lake City, Utah.18 Q Oh, I see, that's a reference to -- that's not19 where this is from. I understand. So this is20 from the light planet?21 A Can I make a comment that may be helpful? I22 recognize the address down below as a person that23 is a -- an amateur person that puts on different24 Mormon-related type of things. I have no25 affiliation with this person, but he collects26 various things and puts them on his website.27 Q I see. So there are a great number of your28 articles -- articles attributed to W. John Walsh29 on this website.30 A I wouldn't call them articles. I would call31 them -- the things that I did were bulletin board32 posts on the internet like I said anywhere from 1033 to 15 to 18 years ago, none of which -- all of34 which were written before I began graduate school35 as a scholar and none of which I would count as36 reflecting my scholarly work.37 Q But you've been engaged in this scholarship, sir,38 for 18 to 20 years?39 A This doesn't reflect my scholarly work.40 Q I should hope --

41 A Assuming I wrote it, it is what I told you that I42 wrote.43 Q This one says "why did the church's prophet get44 rid of polygamy? Was it because of a revelation45 or was it just to appeal to the laws of man." Do46 you recall writing that?47 A I recall writing about these types of subjects.


20/104


1 Q And in your view, sir --2 A The reason -- may I -- the reason I'm just3 hesitant to say I wrote this is, is number one, I4 don't remember the specific piece, number one, and5 number two as I said a lot of the things I wrote6 15 or 18 years ago had been posted on the internet7 and they are in edited form that I did not write.8 So after 18, 15 years, 12 years or whatever that9 date might be for a particular piece I can no10 longer remember did I write this or did someone11 take my first five paragraphs and add five because12 they didn't like what I wrote and they wanted to13 make it better or whatever.

14 Q Well, this is why I'm taking you through it in15 detail, sir, because I want to find out what16 you're actually embracing today versus what you17 embraced perhaps -- or what whoever wrote this18 embraced when it was written.19 Do you have a view of whether it was20 revelation or whether it was just to appeal to the21 laws of man? Do you answer that question in the22 course of this article?23 A At the present time I don't have a view.24 Q Okay.25 A I'm ...26 Q The first sentence "due to religious bigotry over27 the practice of plural marriage the United States28 government announced its intent to destroy the29 Latter-day Saint people." Is that your view?30 A It is. It is the stated view of the US government31 at the time.32 Q To destroy the Latter-day Saint people?33 A That's correct.34 Q And then at the top of page 2, after describing35 President Woodruff the president of the LDS's36 decision to outlaw polygamy you say "the Lord does37 not always immediately show forth power to destroy38 the enemies of his people." Who were the enemies39 of the Lord's people there, sir? Who is that40 referring to?

41 A I'm sorry, which paragraph was that?42 Q The very first sentence at the top of page 2.43 A Oh. Well, in this case the LDS position44 consistently stated has always been that the45 enemies would be the people trying to stop them46 from trying to practice polygamy.47 Q So when you refer to the enemies of the Lord's


21/104


1 people you're referring to who in this instance?2 A Well, let's see. I think from context it appears3 that probably the US government.4 Q I see. And then the very last sentence on that5 page, well, I'll read the last paragraph:67 Occasionally, some people find fault with the8 Latter-day Saints for backing down to the9 government persecution. Those who hold this10 position deny the instructions from the11 saviour about not offending government12 officials. By finding fault with the13 Latter-day Saints they also find fault with

14 Jesus.1516 Is that a position you adopt, sir?17 A No. I don't.18 Q It's your view isn't it, sir, that the Reynolds19 decision should be overturned?20 A If you're -- as a scholar I don't offer opinions21 on that. I just observe, analyse, critique. If22 you're asking me as an individual person I believe23 that the Reynolds decision was probably wrongly24 decided. That people in a free society ought to25 be able to associate with whoever they want26 subject to certain reasonable limitations. And I27 think that most people in a lot of places believe,28 if you just look at the language of the Reynolds29 decision, would not find that in today's society30 to be the way that the Supreme Court of the United31 States would handle the situation. Whether they32 would choose to reverse it or not is obviously up33 to them and so forth. But I think that most34 people when they read the decision would say,35 well, this reflects, you know, that time period of36 how jurisprudence worked, but in 2010 with the37 rights and protections that more individuals have38 today it would probably not come out the same way.39 Q You believe, sir, strongly that members of the LDS40 ought to be able to practice polygamy in

41 accordance with their religion?42 A As a general rule, depending on the nature of what43 practising polygamy means. I think that I would44 apply this to all people. For example -- we're45 talking about my personal beliefs -- the LDS46 church teaches that same sex marriage is wrong and47 should not exist. I personally sponsor same sex


22/104

22John Walsh (for FLDS)Cross-exam on qualifications by Mr. Danay

1 marriage. I believe in it. So my personal views2 are not necessarily correlated with the LDS3 church's views.4 Q Indeed I wasn't asking you for the LDS church's5 view, only --6 A Or the FLDS's church. I would imagine most FLDS7 followers would not be supportive of at least the8 principles of same sex marriage.9 Q Right. But with respect to polygamy I think your10 answer was that your belief was that members of11 the LDS --12 A I believe as a general principle subject to13 reasonable restriction that if a woman wants to

14 live in a house with five man or a man wants to15 live in a house with five women, as long as they16 are all consenting adults that it's not the17 government's business who is doing what. That's18 my general feeling. Subject to reasonable --19 Q Both polygyny and polyandry?20 A That's right. That's my personal feeling.21 MR. JONES: All right. My Lord, I have only a very22 brief submission on what should be the scope of23 Mr. Walsh -- Dr. Walsh's --24 THE COURT: Perhaps we should conclude the25 cross-examination on qualifications before we hear26 submissions.27 MR. JONES: Thank you, My Lord.2829 CROSS-EXAMINATION ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MR. DANAY:30 Q Dr. Walsh, I'm Robert Danay, counsel with the31 Attorney General of Canada, and I just have a32 couple of quick questions. Sir, you mentioned33 when my friend was asking you questions now that34 you conducted some interviews with fundamentalist35 Mormons over the last many years?36 A Informal interviews, yes.37 Q Informal interviews.38 A And I don't want to give the impression that it39 was -- a psychologist, I have gone through and40 done individual psychological studies and profiles

41 and so forth.42 Q And you didn't sort of record interviews in any43 kind of formal way?44 A No. No, this was, you know, going to worship45 services, sitting down talking to people, finding46 out what they're doing, why they're doing it, that47 type of thing.


23/104


1 Q So in fact this was sort of just a -- if I can put2 it that way, an unscientific interaction?3 A That's correct. The interviews are non-scientific4 interviews.5 Q And you don't rely on the fact that you spoke with6 people in worship service over a number of years7 as forming the basis of your expertise before the8 court today?9 A I would say the basis of my expertise is on10 religious studies, and my expertise is founded11 upon the idea that I've studied about everything12 that has been written, that can be written13 extensively. I've studied a lot of other things

14 that place this into context, and I've studies a15 lot of -- besides informal interviews I've studied16 a lot of written documents that are either meeting17 minutes or journals -- personal journals, or18 documentary information, either video or19 transcribed or -- all kinds of other data to find20 out whether or not the behaviour of people is21 somewhat consistent with what they actually say22 they believe.23 Q Let me just -- there's a whole lot of different24 elements in there. Going back to the actual sort25 of discussions, informal discussions you have.26 You mentioned to my friend that you don't have any27 specific training in how to conduct qualitative28 research that involves --29 A I have had some training in that but I not30 performed qualitative research. I really don't31 know too many people who have regarding the FLDS.32 Q Right. But we're not -- the informal interviews33 that you conducted, they were not part of any34 formal qualitative research?35 A They - correct, they were not scientific studies.36 Q Right. And, in fact, you're not trained in how to37 conduct those kinds of scientific studies?38 A I have received some training in how to conduct39 scientific studies.40 Q Qualitative sociological studies?

41 A Yes. I believe some training. I'm not a trained42 sociologist, but as part much my overall education43 I have had to take classes in statistics and44 interviewing and many things like that. But I did45 not perform any of that kind of work in regards to46 formal interviews with FLDS people.47 Q And in fact you've never published any studies in


24/104


1 any periodicals with respect to the FLDS or any2 other group?3 A That's correct.4 Q And you mentioned that you've taken some courses5 in qualitative research methodology and6 quantitative research methodology. Where were7 those courses?8 A They were at Brigham Young University and I have9 studied in classes elsewhere too. As I said, I'm10 not claiming to be a -- the way you asked the11 question -- you have taken no -- you have no12 experience whatsoever in anything like that, and13 the answer is well, no, I actually do, but it's

14 not really relevant to anything I would testify15 about because I have not performed that kind of16 research in regardless to the FLDS.17 Q And you haven't been published in respect of that?18 A Absolutely not. My publications were listed in my19 CV.20 Q I'm just sort of going back to the very first21 questions you were asked by my friend Mr. Wicket.22 You discuss the distinction between religious23 studies and theology, and I take it you were24 saying that theology -- can you just reiterate25 your understanding of that distinction?26 A Sure. Well, sometimes people get confused between27 the two, and theology is just the study of --28 well, basically some of the things that -- I'm29 sorry I don't remember his name, but the --30 whatever we're doing here as far as talking about31 my qualifications in this book. Whoever wrote32 these, whether it was myself or other people or if33 it's some combination of something I wrote and34 someone else edited I don't know, but whatever it35 is, that would be considered dogmatic theology.36 It would be considered saying we believe this.37 We're not looking at it objectively; we're38 promoting a position. To do theology is to39 promote a position. If you take theology at a40 Catholic seminary, as I have, you're being taught

41 that the Catholic church is a true representation42 of Christ upon the earth and the pope is the true43 leader of Christianity and so forth. Those really44 aren't open for discussion. You're taught a45 certain perspective and that is what theology is.46 Religious studies is something else. It's47 coming in and taking a look and saying, what does


25/104


1 John Walsh believe. Okay? How does what he2 believe compare to what other people believe? You3 know, if John Walsh believes in Jesus then how4 does his view of Jesus differ from, say, a5 Catholic view of Jesus or from an FLDS view of6 Jesus or a Muslim view of Jesus or whoever. So7 it's a much more -- it's an objective way of8 looking at how religion and culture affect a9 person, or how they affect religion and culture.10 Q Well, if I understand it, it seems like what11 you're saying, your description of religious12 studies seems to involve an analysis of sort of13 different belief systems?

14 A Correct.15 Q And a comparison between --16 A There's a lot of comparison done in religious17 studies.18 Q So in your PhD thesis you compared the theology of19 Joseph Smith -- I think you called it "The20 Ascension Theology of Joseph Smith"?21 A Correct.22 Q With traditional Christian theology?23 A Correct. Along with pagan theology.24 Q Right. And this whole analysis of what you're25 calling religious studies is different from what a26 sociologist might do or an anthropologist might do27 in that they would of course not just look to the28 texts and the sermons and the beliefs, but they29 might actually drill down into what are the30 practices on the ground and how do those work and31 how do they affect different people. And they32 might measure those in a quantitative way.33 A That's right. And that's what a religious studies34 person might do depending upon the types of study35 that he was doing. Religious studies is36 actually -- was a subcategory of anthropology, and37 what they did is as anthropology became so38 sophisticated and so complex it started breaking39 down into different disciplines. Anthropology is40 the study of the complete and total human being,

41 and what religious studies does is it takes a look42 at it and says we want to take out one sliver of43 this and focus upon religion. How does religion44 affect the human being in all ways.45 Q Well, I'm a bit confused because it seems to me46 that what -- I mean, you've described -- when you47 gave your initial description of religious studies


26/104


1 it really seemed to be something that had to do2 with the doctrines and beliefs of different3 religions that you take a step back and look at4 objectively and perhaps comparatively. And that's5 appears to be in a fact what you yourself did in6 your PhD thesis, but -- maybe some other scholars7 might be involved with more sort of on the ground8 research, but it doesn't seem you've been --9 A Well, this might be helpful then. In most10 religious studies programs when they describe them11 they often would say something like when you go12 through your curriculum you would study not art13 and architecture but you're going to study

14 religious art and architecture. But you're not15 going to know as much about art and architecture16 as someone with a PhD in those fields. You're17 going to study religious history, so you're going18 to know something about history but you're not19 going to know as much as someone who has a PhD20 only in history.21 So what you're doing is you're taking out22 individual slivers of different disciplines, and23 that's why it's a cross disciplinary degree. But24 they are all circled around one thing: Religion.25 So you examine actually many different disciplines26 that are normally taught at university, but you're27 not concerned with the totality of the discipline.28 You're only focussed upon the interaction that29 this discipline has with religion.30 Q And when we look to your sort of personal -- so31 this is sort of broadly religious studies can32 extend that far?33 A Right.34 Q But when we look at your personal expertise, I35 mean, all we have before the court right now, all36 that we have heard about, aside from some articles37 that you are not entirely sure that you wrote38 sometime before you gained any kind of scholarly39 ability, we have your PhD thesis?40 A Right.

41 Q And that was dealing with a comparative doctrinal42 analysis?43 A That's correct.44 Q Of different belief systems?45 A Right.46 Q And we have the article that was published in the47 journal of Mormon studies?


27/104


1 A International Journal of Mormon Studies, that's2 correct.3 Q And the topic of that article was?4 A I have to look it up now. It's were Jesus and5 Satan brothers or something to that -- or are they6 brothers. A short exploration of Mormon7 Christology.8 Q Right. And Christology is the study of the9 writings of sort of the early Christian fathers?10 A Christology means -- basically it's the knowledge11 about Jesus Christ, so Christological studies12 would be anything about Jesus. Historical,13 psychological, whatever it might be. Something --

14 if you're talking about Jesus you're doing15 Christology from an academic standpoint.16 Q Right. And in this article you were looking at17 the sort of doctrines and beliefs about --18 A Yes, that's correct.19 Q -- Jesus?20 A That's correct.21 Q And this wasn't a sociological question?22 A No, it's not. Because I'm not a sociologist.23 Q Right. And the particular focus of your two works24 that we know of -- well, I guess you did mention25 there was a book?26 A I have basically -- probably what's relevant to27 Mormonism is I have only two published things, my28 PhD dissertation and the article to which you29 refer.30 Q Right. And both of these publications deal solely31 with doctrinal analysis of beliefs; is that right?32 A Yes, that's correct.33 Q And neither of them deal with sociological34 phenomena and how they affect people and --35 A Absolutely. You're correct.36 Q Maybe if you can just let me finish the question.37 A I'm sorry.38 Q Just for the record. And I was going to say39 neither of those documents involve any sort of40 sociological analysis of any empirical study on

41 the ground as to how those practices or beliefs42 are manifested?43 A Yes, you're correct.44 MR. DANAY: Okay. Those are my questions on45 qualifications.46 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Danay. Any other cross on47 qualifications? Any redirect?


28/104

28John Walsh (for FLDS)Submissions re Qualifications

1 MR. WICKETT: I'm sorry, My Lord, I didn't know you2 were looking at me. No, nothing on redirect.3 THE COURT: Thank you. Submissions? So he has been4 tendered as an expert in religious studies with an5 emphasis on Mormonism.6 MR. JONES: Yes, My Lord, and I guess my submissions7 are just -- and there's been a few questions asked8 to sort of elucidate this.9 I certainly have no concern with Dr. Walsh10 being qualified as an expert with respect to11 doctrine and in particular comparative doctrine.12 My concern is that he comes close in his affidavit13 to -- and I expect in his testimony -- to speaking

14 to matters of a more practical import. He says,15 for instance, at one point that no one is forced16 into polygamy, an allegation of fact that is17 directly contradicted by much of the evidence that18 will be before Your Lordship. And so if he's --19 if he's going to say that according to doctrine no20 one should be forced into polygamy I have no21 difficulty with that, but I think the limits of22 his expertise are comparative doctrinal as opposed23 to the broader questions that he trenches on.24 Those are my submissions.25 MR. WICKETT: Firstly, My Lord, I will have Dr. Walsh26 explain his comment my learned friend is referring27 to, and we'll come to that in due course. But28 Dr. Walsh's expertise is, as my friend has said,29 in -- certainly in doctrinal issues with respect30 to Mormonism, both the LDS form of it and the31 fundamentalist form of it, but he is also aware of32 and is able to give evidence and is qualified to33 give evidence with respect to the normative34 practices which he has spoken of in his report.35 So to the extent that it's obvious he's not36 being tendered as an expert in sociology or37 interviewing or he's not going to stand up and38 saying this is the way things are always done in39 the FLDS, there isn't any of that sort of evidence40 coming from him.

41 THE COURT: Any other submissions on the42 qualifications, Mr. Danay?43 MR. DANAY: Chief Justice, the Attorney General of44 Canada would effectively echo the submissions of45 my friend Mr. Jones for the Attorney General of46 BC, and in short I would strongly urge that the47 qualifications be limited to strictly doctrinal


29/104

29John Walsh (for FLDS)Submissions re Qualifications

1 theological matters. It really seems like there's2 absolutely no basis for any expertise in how these3 doctrines or practices manifest in the real world4 other than some informal discussions that the5 witness may have had with some individuals at6 points in time. We see no publications of that7 nature. We see no training of that nature, and8 really the limits clearly on the face of the9 expertise and training are limited to matters of a10 doctrinal nature pure and simple.11 THE COURT: Thank you.12 MR. WICKETT: Sorry, I don't mean to repeat myself,13 My Lord, but it may be that we're making

14 submissions about nothing here. I'm not quite15 sure. I am not making -- I am not tendering16 Dr. Walsh --17 THE COURT: You're suggesting there are a few straw men18 in the room.19 MR. WICKETT: I'm not tendering Dr. Walsh to deal with20 the issue of what occurs on the day-to-day basis21 within the FLDS. He is aware of normative22 practices. That's what his evidence is going to23 be addressed to, in addition to purely doctrinal24 matters.25 THE COURT: Well, I think the witness has been26 qualified as an expert in religious study with an27 emphasis on Mormonism, and what religious studies28 is has been canvassed at some length in the29 cross-examination that does appear to be limited30 to the doctrinal analysis and beliefs with the31 qualification that Mr. Wickett has made, and I am32 going to qualify him on that basis.33 MR. WICKETT: Thank you, My Lord. You can just put34 that aside.35 THE COURT: We don't deal with marking this until we36 see if you're going to be pursuing it.37 MR. JONES: That's right, My Lord, and it will be --38 Ms. Ross will be conducting the cross-examination.39 THE COURT: I'm wondering -- it's 11:05. Would a break40 would be good?

41 MR. WICKETT: Certainly, My Lord.42 THE COURT: How are we doing on time?43 MR. WICKETT: I don't think I'll be longer than half an44 hour or 40 minutes doing direct examination.45 THE COURT: Okay. And the cross would take us to the46 afternoon then?47 MS. ROSS: It's likely, My Lord, depending on what


30/104

30John Walsh (for FLDS)In chief by Mr. Wickett

1 comes out in direct.2 THE CLERK: Order in court. Court is adjourned for the3 morning recess.45 (WITNESS STOOD DOWN)6 (MORNING RECESS)78 JOHN WALSH, a witness for9 the FLDS, recalled.1011 THE CLERK: Order in court.12 MR WICKETT: Thank you, My Lord.13

14 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. WICKETT:15 Q Now, Dr. Walsh, do you have your report in front16 of you?17 A Yes, I do.18 Q Thank you. I'm going to take you through some19 parts of your report, Doctor, and ask you to20 explain some things and then I'll be allowing --21 or turning you over to my learned friends for22 cross-examination.23 Your report, if I could ask you to begin,24 Dr. Walsh, at paragraph 10 of your report, which25 is on page 3. And in paragraph 10 you were26 explaining some of the FLDS and LDS common27 heritage, and LDS refers to the main -- what I28 would describe as the main or the Mormon church29 today, based in Salt Lake?30 A Yes, it's the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day31 Saints quartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.32 Q Thank you. In any event, in paragraph 10 you're33 describing the -- some of the common heritage, and34 you say in the third line, "today the FLDS and LDS35 share about 95 percent common theology and about36 75 percent common practice." Can you explain what37 you mean by that, please.38 A Well, both groups were part of the same group39 prior to a schism. So at the time of the schism40 we'd say that they enjoyed 100 percent common

41 theology and 100 common practice. Then after the42 schism there is slight evolution in theology and I43 used 95 percent as an estimate because it's very44 slight. It's mainly in the area of priesthood,45 institutional type of issues.46 The practice though is more noticeable.47 There are -- since the schism there really several


31/104


1 areas that are readily apparent. One of course is2 polygamy, that the FLDS and other Mormon3 fundamentalists have maintained polygamous4 relations while the LDS church no longer practices5 polygamy. The second area of concerns really6 communal living by the FLDS. They live in the --7 kind of a manifestation of the united order8 principle taught by Joseph Smith. The LDS teach9 the principle of the law of consecration and10 communal living but do not actually practice it as11 a community at the present time.12 And probably the third area that's really13 noticeable would be dress, where the LDS maintain

14 somewhat mainstream dress standards. They blend15 in more easily with society, even though they also16 have standards of modesty. But the FLDS have a17 more rigid modesty standard and they wear clothes18 that often make them stand out more in mainstream19 society because they are trying to keep more of20 their body parts covered from other's views. So21 that's the big chunks of that 25 percent22 difference in common practice.23 Q Thank you. In the last two lines of that same24 practice you make references to the fact that both25 churches accept the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the26 Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great27 Price. I wonder if you might explain those. You28 don't need to explain the Bible of course, but the29 other documents, could you explain to His Lordship30 what those are, please.31 A The Book of Mormon purports to be a translation32 made by Joseph Smith of an ancient record that he33 found recorded on golden plates. It's put34 together somewhat like the Bible is in different35 books, so as the Bible would have Genesis, Exodus,36 Matthew, Mark, John, the Book with of Mormon has37 books also. First Nephi, Enos, Mormon, Moroni and38 things of that nature.39 The Doctrine and Convenants is a different40 kind of work. It's a collection of revelations

41 received by Joseph Smith and compiled in written42 form. It's called Doctrine and Covenants because43 the revelations often contained doctrine and they44 also contained the covenants between God and his45 people.46 The Pearl of Great Price is still yet another47 kind of work. It was originally put together for


32/104


1 Mormons living in England who did not have access2 to LDS literature and it contains the articles of3 faith which was a letter -- part of a letter that4 Joseph Smith wrote that describes some of the5 basic beliefs of Mormons. It contains a short6 excerpt from the Joseph Smith history. It7 contains the book of Abraham, the book of Moses,8 and the church as a whole found that the9 compilation was of enough worth that they decided10 to canonize it. And so these four works together11 by both churches are the scriptures, the standard12 works, the canon that they use.13 Q Thank you. If I could ask you to turn to

14 paragraph 22 which is on page 7. In this15 paragraph you were explaining the time at which16 then President Woodruff of the LDS formally17 announced the cessation of polygamy as a practice18 in the LDS church. And you give a quote at the19 end of paragraph 22 of the statement made by20 President Woodruff. This occurred in about 1890?21 A Yes, the manifesto was issued in 1890.22 Q Yes. And I won't read the entire statement to you23 but it seems in reading it appears to be a fairly24 practical statement. Could you explain to25 His Lordship please how the cessation of polygamy26 was treated from a theological standpoint by the27 LDS?28 A The LDS did not renounce the principle of29 polygamy. What they did is they've made a30 practical realization that they would not be able31 to continue as a community under the pressure they32 were receiving from the American federal33 government. And therefore they decided that they34 would cease the practice of polygamy due to this35 pressure but at that time they maintained that36 they still believed in the principle of polygamy.37 Q And has that -- from a theological standpoint has38 that position changed or evolved over time within39 the LDS church?40 A It officially has never changed. Informally you

41 would say that probably within the LDS church42 today there are two major groups. I couldn't put43 an exact number, whether it's 50/50 or 60/40, but44 they are both substantial groups. One group would45 like the return of polygamy, and believe that's a46 holy principle that should be eternally practised.47 Another large group, possibly each larger than the


33/104


1 first group, would like to see polygamy not2 returned. They believe it's an archaic practice3 and so they would like it not to return.4 So officially the church has never altered5 its position on polygamy, but informally the6 millions of members of the LDS church are kind of7 divided into those two camps.8 Q If you turn over to page 5, paragraph 26. In this9 section of your report, Doctor, you're describing10 at paragraph 26 the schism between the FLDS and11 the LDS? In the last sentence of that paragraph12 you say that -- referring to 1911 with the13 excommunication of the apostle John Taylor,

14 following that:1516 The church did not aggressively excommunicate17 polygamists until the 1920s and 30s when it18 began to forcefully pursue a mainstream19 all-American image in the national20 consciousness.2122 What do you mean by that, why did it happen and23 was there any change in the theological view?24 Three questions in one.25 A What happened was is even though the manifesto had26 been issued in 1890 renouncing polygamy the27 practice did not entirely cease among the Mormons28 and a number of Mormons were still practising29 polygamy, including some leaders of the church.30 Then several events kind of came together during31 one time period.32 The first event was the American federal33 government came back to the LDS church and said we34 had an agreement that you wouldn't practice35 polygyny any more and we noticed that there are36 still polygamists here and so we feel like you're37 not keeping to your agreement. And so some38 discussions were had on that nature and whether39 the government should review the sanctions that40 had been lifted, perhaps add new sanctions.

41 At the same time you had a new leadership of42 the LDS church rising up. As time goes by older43 leaders pass away or step down and new leaders44 take their place. Many of the new leaders had45 been educated out in the east. They -- even46 though many of them had descended from47 polygamists, some of them had not. None of


34/104


1 them -- none of them themselves had been2 polygamists. And so some of these new leaders3 felt that polygamy, even if it had been made4 legal, it was best left in the past.5 So that occurred and then the other thing6 that occurred was at this point the church started7 thinking internationally. Until this point the8 LDS church had been inviting all converts to move9 wherever they were living to move to Utah in the10 United States. And at this point, whether it was11 because Utah was fully populated or whether it was12 a change in perspective -- I have seen argument13 on both sides of that, the church did make a

14 decision that they wanted Latter-day Saints to15 stay in the communities in which they were born16 and raised and that they should build up the17 church in those locations.18 And there was some discussion that as the19 church began an international effort of building20 itself up in various countries, that if they21 openly embrace polygamy that might cause some22 international issues because certain countries23 might respond as the American government did and24 perhaps even more harshly. Not only would they25 maybe not let Mormon missionaries in, but they26 could even persecute the Mormons living in those27 countries.28 And so all of these events kind of came29 together during one time period and the end result30 of that is that the LDS church decided they were31 going to purge the church of polygamy and actually32 excommunication anyone in polygamous33 relationships.34 So even though the manifesto had been issued35 in 1890 really it was not until the 20s and 30s,36 30 to 40 years later, that this program actually37 began.38 Q And is that what led to the schism and to the --39 A Yes.40 Q -- formation of what eventually became the FLDS?

41 A Sorry. Yes, it is. The LDS church, as it began42 excommunicating people, there was a group of43 people who had been willing to go along with the44 public stance against polygamy as long as they had45 been left to privately practice polygamy as they46 saw fit. And once the LDS church decided they47 would excommunicate all polygamists groups of


35/104


1 people broke away from the LDS church and formed2 loose associations. One of the main one was the3 Council of Friends. It's in southern Utah and4 northern Arizona.5 Q All right. Moving on to paragraph 27 you make the6 comment that -- at about the fourth line down,7 that some scholars estimate there may be as many8 as 50,000 Mormon fundamentalists living in Canada9 and the United States?10 A Yes, that's correct.11 Q And of those about 10,000 are in the FLDS?12 A Yes, that's correct.13 Q Have you made any observations or had any

14 interaction with any of these other fundamentalist15 Mormon groups other than the FLDS?16 A Yes, I have had interactions with the United17 Apostolic Brethern and a number of independent18 Mormon fundamentalists.19 Q And what is the nature of the observations you20 made of those groups? How would you would21 characterize them?22 A Well, I would I tend their worship services, I23 would read their literature; I would ask questions24 of leaders and of lay people how they interpreted25 various Mormon doctrines, what resources they26 would read, what books they would consider27 authoritative, what prophets they would consider28 authoritative. I would -- where possible I would29 gain access to written material, things like30 meeting minutes or personal journals, anything31 that would give me kind of an independent flavour32 of how they were interpreting Mormon belief and33 practice.34 Q And did you do the same type of work respect to35 the FLDS?36 A Yes, I have.37 Q Turning over, please, to paragraph 31. You're38 beginning the discussion of celestial marriage and39 an explanation of it, and at the end of that40 paragraph you say:

4142 It is not required and it is nowhere43 contemplated that participants in celestial44 marriage will tell others their union is or45 should be recognized as a matter of civil46 law --47


36/104


1 Et cetera. Could you explain the difference,2 speaking theologically, in terms of how the FLDS3 views it, between celestial marriage and a civil4 marriage.5 A For the FLDS they view civil marriage as a6 contractual system of relationships sponsored by7 some type of government. Normally there are some8 type of rights, responsibilities, privileges9 established by the government that is sanctioning10 the civil marriage. And for them celestial11 marriage is something different.12 In the FLDS theology there is a heavenly13 family linked in family chains that starts at God

14 and goes through all the generations of Adam and15 Eve to the current generation. It also includes16 pre-mortal spirits that have not yet been born.17 And the purpose of celestial marriage is basically18 to find a way to bond every person in the faith19 community into that family chain, because by being20 part of the family chain they are enabled to21 inherent the highest degree of glory in the22 kingdom of heaven and the after life.23 And so celestial marriage gives them a place24 within the chain and it also gives them an25 opportunity to practice certain things that would26 enable them then to inherit heaven in the27 afterlife.28 Q Does the covenant of marriage -- celestial29 marriage that is, always imply a sexual30 relationship within the FLDS?31 A No, it doesn't.32 Q And what would be an example of a celestial33 marriage that would not imply a sexual34 relationship?35 A Well, one example would be, let's say that you had36 a widow that did not have a family. The FLDS37 believe on a practical basis everyone needs to be38 part of a family group. And so she might be39 sealed into a celestial marriage to a family -- to40 a man that has a family and so that they could

41 take care of her, that she would contribute as42 well. And the FLDS don't believe in nursing homes43 or other people taking care of family members and44 so they would take care of her until she passed45 away. But she might be 60, 70, 80s years old.46 The man to whom she to whom she is sealed might be47 30, 40, 50 years old, and there was never any


37/104


1 contemplation of a sexual aspect to that2 particular sealing.3 Q All right. Over, please, to paragraph 37 on4 page 13. This explanation of a term of art,5 Doctor. At the end of that paragraph you say:67 While each blessing is different many of them8 take the form of the blessings found in9 various scriptural sources. The sealing is10 only considered valid if sealed by the holy11 spirit of promise.1213 What does that mean?

14 A Well, the holy spirit of promise is a way of15 referring to what other people have called the16 holy ghost or the holy spirit or God based spirit.17 And what it means is, is that within the FLDS18 religious construct men can have delegated19 priesthood power, and priesthood power means it's20 the power of God. So God has delegated to them21 some of his authority, some of his power to do22 various things.23 But if someone, even if they have proper24 delegated power -- they haven't assumed it25 themselves but it's been actually given to them --26 if they don't use that power in the way that God27 would want them to use, in other words they do it28 in an unrighteous way, then the act that they29 perform, no matter what it might be, is not sealed30 by the holy spirit of promise which means it's a31 way of God not ratifying it. And the only things32 that are of effect are things that God ratifies.33 So it's kind of a safety catch within the34 culture, because it says that no matter who it35 might be, if someone comes to you and says, I36 sealed this, whether it be a union or blessing or37 whatever it might be, if it is something that God38 would not a prove of then the sealing is of none39 effect.40 Q Turning over to page 14, Doctor. At paragraph 41.

41 Do you have that?42 A Yes.43 Q You make a the statement that:4445 The nature and extent of FLDS church members'46 participation in polygamy is not determined47 solely by the members themselves but through


38/104


1 ecclesiastical leaders --23 Et cetera. Within the FLDS who are the4 ecclesiastical leaders with authority to seal5 people in marriage?6 A At this day and time that would be the president,7 sometimes called the prophet, of the church, the8 head of the priesthood in the community, and9 anyone that he would delegate with this authority.10 Q And how generally would this system be described?11 A From the outside world it would be considered an12 arranged marriage or a match making system.13 Within the FLDS community they normally call it

14 the law of placement or placement marriage.15 Q Is this process of placement or assignment in16 marriage, whatever you would call it, by a prophet17 also followed by other fundamentalist Mormon18 groups?19 A No, the vast majority of pair-bondings that are20 done within Mormon fundamentalism are21 self-selection. The placement marriages done22 within the FLDS are pretty much unique to the23 FLDS.24 Q Was the assignment in marriage or placement in25 marriage process a tenet of Mormonism before the26 schism between the LDS and the FLDS?27 A No, it was not.28 Q To your knowledge what is the history of the29 placement or assignment marriage process within30 the FLDS itself?31 A It began really in -- about the early to mid32 1950s. There was what I would call a retrenchment33 effort going on. This is something that happens34 within Mormonism from time to time, where the35 spiritual leaders of the community feel that36 members of the community are going off track, that37 they're back becoming more worldly and less38 spiritual, and so they kind of retrench back to39 basic value systems. As part of one of these40 efforts the leaders at the time started

41 implementing this placement system, feeling that42 this was a way to make marriage more spiritual, if43 people were trying to find out that God wanted44 them to marry instead of just choosing for45 themselves based on whatever personal preference46 system they had.47 MR. JONES: My Lord, I rise to object, and I apologize


39/104


1 to my friend, but the clear understanding is that2 the expert witnesses will take us through that3 their reports or their affidavit and not stray4 beyond them, and we don't see any of this5 discussion in the affidavits. And I wonder if my6 friend could point out where this occurred.7 MR. WICKETT: It's not within the affidavit itself,8 My Lord. I'm asking the witness to expand upon9 what he has said to give a full picture of10 Mormonism. But I concede that it wasn't addressed11 directly in his report.12 THE COURT: Right. So let's -- it's alright to explain13 in the report, but to the extent you go beyond

14 that you take your friends by surprise and they15 aren't prepared to respond. So would you keep it16 within the confines of the report and elucidating17 or clarifying aspects of the report itself.18 MR. WICKETT: Right. Thank you.19 Q Turning, Doctor, to paragraph 45. In paragraph 4520 you speak of the doctrine of agency. Do you see21 that?22 A Yes, I do.23 Q You say in the second sentence:2425 Mormonism espouses a concept of human agency26 far stronger than any concept of free will27 found in either philosophical Judaism or28 traditional Christianity.2930 Could you explain what that means, please.31 A Most doctrines of religions flow from their32 concept of God, of man, and how God and man are33 related. In traditional Christianity, and also34 Judaism and Islam for that matter, there is the35 idea that God has created human beings from36 nothing, and because God has created human beings37 from nothing they have no inalienable rights of38 their own. They only have rights that God has39 decided to give them for they are wholly and40 totally creatures, okay? So free will is

41 something that is bestowed by God upon a person as42 a free gift for whatever extent God decides to43 give this gift.44 In Mormonism, by contrast, they don't share45 the same view of creation that human beings were46 created by God out of nothing. Instead, within47 Mormonism human beings are co-eternal with God and


40/104

40John Walsh (for FLDS)Cross-exam by Ms. Ross

1 have agency of their own that has always been with2 them and that is an inherent part of their nature.3 What this means is that God -- it's not that4 God will not take away the agency of human beings,5 but that he actually cannot and lacks the power to6 do so. And since God cannot take away the agency7 of human beings then other people cannot take away8 the agency of other people.9 Q Thank you. Turning over, Doctor, to paragraph 46.10 You made the statement that - in the last11 paragraph -- that the doctrine of agency means12 people are not forced into polygamy. What did you13 mean by that?

14 A Well, if you look at the theology and you expand,15 and I give a very, very quick summary of how the16 doctrine of agency is kind of related to man's17 nature. If you look at that doctrine what it18 means is that it's not possible to force people to19 do anything. Now, from a practical level yes, you20 could force someone to do something. You could21 force someone to rob a bank or to do something22 like that, but you have no right to do so. And it23 would be against the theology of the religion to24 take away someone's agency by either forcing them25 to enter polygamy or forcing them to do anything26 else for that matter. Force and coercion are27 directly contrary to the theology.28 MR. WICKETT: Thank you, Doctor. Those are my29 questions.30 THE COURT: Thank you. And Ms. Ross, is it?31 MS. ROSS: Thank you, My Lord.3233 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. ROSS:34 Q Dr. Walsh, my name is Eva Ross and I'm counsel for35 the Attorney General of British Columbia in this.36 I will be asking you a few questions today. And I37 will endeavour to speak up.38 So Dr. Walsh, you started out at the beginning39 of your evidence in chief about talking about the40 doctrinal differences between the FLDS and the LDS

41 church?42 A Yes.43 Q And you talked about polygamy, communal living and44 dress standards?45 A Correct.46 Q Okay. And have you heard of a collection of works47 of the FLDS leaders -- of words of the FLDS


41/104


1 leaders compiled by Rulon Jeffs called In Light2 and Truth?3 A I have.4 Q Have you read that book?5 A I have read parts of it.6 Q Is this book used in mainstream LDS religious7 instruction?8 A It is not.9 Q And just to clarify, when you testified in Texas10 that you had never -- you did testify in Texas in11 the 14-day adversary hearing; correct?12 A Yes, I did.13 Q And you had never been to the YFZ ranch, the

14 Yearning For Zion ranch at the time or spoken to15 any of the people that had been resident there; is16 that true?17 A That's true.18 Q And I'm just wondering, your evidence at19 paragraph 10 of your affidavit, if I can just take20 you there, is that the FLDS and LDS share about21 95 percent common theology and 75 percent common22 practice. Where does that 75 come from?23 A Well, the 75 percent? They share the same canon24 of scripture, which means that all the doctrines25 of theology that they believe in is the same. And26 out of those doctrines and theology, and it's not27 just those works, but they share the body of works28 called the Journal of Discourses which are the29 theological discourses from Mormon leaders from30 the time of Brigham Young all the way to about31 1880. And so there's a large body of common32 literature.33 Q Yes. That's the theology part?34 A Correct. That's the theology.35 Q M'mm-hmm?36 A And then out of that theology people form daily37 habits of what they do. For example, who do they38 pray to? Both groups pray to heavenly father, you39 know, things of that nature where if you were to40 go to the worship services of either group you

41 would find that they are more similar to each42 other than they are to any other thing. It would43 be like going to a Catholic church, for example,44 and you went to a Catholic church in Alberta and45 then went to a Catholic church in Mexico. There46 would be some differences because of nationality,47 but you would say these Catholic churches are more


42/104


1 similar to each other than it would be going to,2 say, a Lutheran church in Florida.3 Q Okay. I'm just -- actually, my question is where4 did the 75 percent come from?5 A I'm sorry, that's an estimate based on my6 experience.7 Q On your experience?8 A Right.9 Q So that's no an ethnographic estimate or anything10 like that?11 A That's correct. It's just an estimate based on my12 observations of attending worship services and13 talking to people about what they believe and how

14 they're different.15 Q Are you familiar with the evidence that's been16 filed in this constitutional reference?17 A I am not.18 Q And so you haven't viewed any of the 14 video19 affidavits as filed by --20 A I have not, no.21 Q And have you become familiar with any evidence22 filed by -- on behalf of Dr. Larry Beall, a23 psychologist?24 A I know who Dr. Beall is. I am not aware of any25 evidence he has filed in this referendum.26 Q Okay. And what about the affidavit of Eric27 Nichols?28 A I have not seen that affidavit of Eric Nichols.29 Q And what about any of the affidavits filed by30 current members of the FLDS?31 A For this referendum I have not seen anything.32 Q So just to confirm then, you're not actually33 offering advice on any of the evidence that's been34 presented in this reference?35 A That's correct. And if there are specific issues36 of fact involved about various things in Canada37 I'm not familiar with those.38 Q Okay. I would like to turn now then to your39 des

Date post:	09-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	borninbrooklyn
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

01 05 2011 Proceedings Day 15 Polygamy Reference Case

Documents