There has been a great deal of publicity over recent weeks about the offshoot sect of Mormonism that still practices plural marriage. The ‘Yearning for Zion’ community of Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints in rural Texas has been raided, and several hundred children have been removed from their families, on suspicion of abuse.

The situation reflects a clash of two opposing principles, and it’s always hard, when this happens, to decide which one should win. The first is that there is a strong feeling, embedded in the American tradition, that people should be left alone to live, as far as possible, in the way they want to live, as long as they are doing no harm to anyone else. This is especially true when a religious basis is claimed for the chosen way of life; there’s a deep sense that everyone is entitled to follow his/her own religious principles, without interference from the State. The fact that the Amish have been tolerated, respected, and left alone to pursue their chosen lifestyle, even though it seems strange to most mainstream Americans, is an example of this principle in action.

But at the same time, there is a belief that the State has a responsibility to protect those members of society who cannot protect themselves; and that if it can be shown that people are being harmed by the practices of any particular group, then the State should intervene to safeguard those who are at risk. This argument has extra force when those at risk are children. There is broad agreement that, whereas adults can be held responsible for the consequences of their behavior, children who are “below the age of consent” shouldn’t be; and they shouldn’t suffer because of the beliefs of their parents. “The age of consent” is a legal term, and the precise age to which it refers varies in different jurisdictions and for different purposes; but it’s a generally agreed concept.

Which of these two principles predominates depends on the context. Not many of us want to live as the Amish do; and we might criticize the lack of education that their children receive (elementary schooling only) and the repression of their women (it’s a patriarchal society). But we don’t interfere. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, seem a little more suspect. It is well known that they disapprove of many medical procedures, and from time to time we hear of a Witness dying because of the refusal of what would have been a life-saving blood transfusion. Then there is a momentary stir in the news, and the question is raised: should the State step in to protect people from themselves? Again, it’s easier to make the case for intervention when the victim is a child.

The FLDS seems to be still more extreme. It’s more patriarchal than Amish, and more authoritarian than Jehovah’s Witnesses. Also – and this, I think, is why it has attracted so much attention – it involves sexual practices that are way out of the mainstream. That alone is enough to scandalize us, obsessed as our culture is by anything sexual.

In fairness, however, we should note that the FLDS could point to Old Testament practice to justify anything they do. Polygamy was normal in the Old Testament, and adolescent girls were married off, by their fathers, as soon as they were capable of conceiving. Consent to sexual intercourse, in the Old Testament, means consent of the girl’s father, not of the girl. In Genesis 34, there is the story of Dinah, daughter of Jacob, who fell in love with Shechem. But Jacob claimed she had been raped. Why? Because he, Jacob, had not given Shechem permission. The fact that Dinah loved Shechem was irrelevant. There was no concept of an age of consent, because all members of a family, boys as well as girls (and women), were the property of the father. He could do whatever he wanted with them; they had no individual rights whatsoever. In addition, there is no condemnation of polygamy anywhere in the Bible (except for bishops and deacons). The FLDS can reasonably claim that they are trying to live in accordance with Biblical law.

But it is impossible, in any modern society, to live completely, literally, by Biblical laws. Even the most conservative Jews can’t do it. Fundamentalist Christians certainly don’t, whatever they may claim. The only way that the FLDS can come near it is by cutting themselves off from modern society and going into the wilderness. And that’s what they are doing; living tribally out in the wilderness.

And it is the wilderness from which many of the Old Testament standards arise. When the Israelites were nomads, with no land of their own, they were constantly coming into conflict with other nomads in a struggle for their continued existence. When they reached their promised land, again they had to fight many rivals for possession of it. Fighting was necessary for survival, and the men, who did the fighting, inevitably were in command. Also inevitably, many of them were killed. There was thus a great surplus of women, and an urgent need to replace the males who had been lost. The more women a man marries, the more children he can produce. Hence, patriarchy and polygamy became normal.

The earliest Mormons were in a similar position, as they trekked westwards to Utah. Their men were more likely to be killed, and they needed to increase their population. So polygamy was useful at that time. Once they became established, however, it became unnecessary, and indeed obstructive. About half of all babies born are males, and half are females. So if some men have many wives, there won’t be enough women to go round. A stable society can’t be maintained if it contains large numbers of men with no family ties, and no prospect of finding partners. The Mormons resolved this difficulty when their Prophet, who has a direct line with God, received a new revelation that polygamy was no longer needed (the new revelation also gained statehood for them).

The FLDS has dealt with the same problem in two ways. One is by driving many surplus adolescent boys out of the community. Once they are gone, of course, the FLDS takes no further responsibility for them, and they become dependent on the State. The other way is that, as the pool of potential wives diminishes, the age of the girls given in marriage gets lower. Obviously, this can’t be sustained indefinitely. Eventually the system will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. The question is whether the outside world, in the form of the State, should intervene in the meantime.

It’s a hard question: when to intervene, when to leave people to live as they wish. If we intervene, we risk the accusation of paternalism; who am I to tell other people that they will be happier if they abandon their lifestyles and live the way I live? If a wife is happy sharing a husband with half a dozen sister wives, who am I to tell her she’s wrong? Will the children of the FLDS be happier if they are taken away from their mothers?

It’s important to see how the vision of God’s law develops from the Old to the New Testaments. As circumstances change, so laws must adapt. Conditions in the wilderness were tough; and without tough laws, the Israelites might not have survived. But, like the Mormons, things changed when they became settled, and many of the laws that had sustained them in the wilderness didn’t fit any more. Agricultural societies are different from nomads. The new conditions made many of their past laws obsolete. And as Paul says, the law is a tutor to bring us to Christ; necessary at one stage, but now outgrown. We are now sons and daughters; not slaves. We respond in love, not through compulsion. Jesus has given a new understanding of the gift of freedom to each of us. We are all individuals with free choice; we aren’t just members of a tribe.

But of course freedom entails responsibility; this requires an informed use of the gift of freewill. In order to choose, you need to know what the choices and their consequences are. You shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free. The corollary is clearly that if you don’t know the truth, you can’t be free. And Jesus points us toward the truth.

That is not to say, as some might, that if you know Jesus, you know the truth. That’s far too simplistic. Jesus describes himself as being the way, a dynamic metaphor, as well as the truth. Truth also is dynamic; the full truth lies well ahead of us. It’s something that we are working towards, not that we have attained. It’s as well to be cautious in our claims to possess the truth; we perceive it only, as Paul again says, through a glass, darkly.

And this is where we distinguish ourselves from cults such as FLDS. It is the claim to possess the truth completely and exclusively that is the problem; it is an arrogant, even blasphemous claim. If I make that claim, and have the power and will to enforce my version of my truth on other people, I am denying their gift of freewill; I am denying their right to the information on which they may freely choose.

That’s the difference between a cult and a religion. Religion recognizes that we are all, together, on a quest to grow closer to the transcendent truth of God. It gives us insights, guideposts, visions, in the faith that honest inquiry and mutual reflection can progressively clear our sight; that we all have ideas to share towards our common goal. Cults claim to possess the truth in its entirety, and it is usually embodied in a leader or group of leaders whose teachings cannot be questioned. Anyone who deviates from the leader’s views will be either harshly disciplined into acquiescence, or banished. Cults are resistant to outsiders because they do not want their own thinking to be challenged.

That’s why I believe that the State of Texas has an obligation to intervene in the FLDS, and ensure that the freedom of all its citizens is upheld. It’s also why I am suspicious of any religion that acts as if it has a monopoly on the truth. It isn’t their plural marriage or underage marriage that is the problem; it’s their being so certain that their way is right. To me, the issue is that of a totalitarian fundamentalism. As Pascal said: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction”; and they do that when they are utterly convinced that they are right and that any dissent must be sinful. That’s not the way of love, truth and life.