DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Stray Pooch on April 20, 2008, 12:08:26 PM
-
All of the buzz about the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints lately has prompted questions about polygamy among Mormons and how the "Mormon Church" is related to the FLDS church. I think most people get (because many outlets have taken the trouble to point out) that the "mainstream" church and this particular sect are not the same, but a lot of people think that we are sympathetic to, or wink at, the kinds of behavior going on in the sect. Since I am the token Mormon on this site, I figured I'd shed little light on the subject.
First of all, "Mormon" is not the correct name for a member of my church. In fact, it got its start as a derogatory term. "Mormon Church" is not an appropriate term. Because of 175 years of usage, the term "Mormon" has become acceptable under certain circumstances (see the following link for its uses). http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/style-guide We don't get bent out of shape over it, but really calling me a "Mormon" is about the same as calling a Muslim a "Mohammedan."
That said, to understand where my church differs from other sects with a common starting point, let me give a brief history of the church and its splinter groups.
Joseph Smith, Jr. founded "The Church of Christ" (by that name) on April 6, 1830. Today there are several groups that claim to come from that church. By that name choice we mean that the original church that Christ established 2000 years ago became corrupted over time and that Joseph Smith, Jr. actually 'restored" the original church. So we are, we believe, the original church restored.
Several years later, the name of the church was modified to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." The addition of "Latter Day Saints" was a distinction. Practically speaking, there were several churches that called themselves the "Church of Christ" or something similar and were in no way related to our church. Further, in discussing the gospel, it is sometimes necessary to distinguish between the restored church and the original church. As an example, when people ask "Was Peter a Mormon?" the answer is yes and no. He was not, of course, a member of the restored church since he did not live in this dispensation (a term which in this context means, at its simplest, a particular era in time). Yet he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, and as we claim to be the restored church, he can be said to be a member of the same church we are. "Latter Day Saints" is a term describing those people who are members of the restored church. This is as opposed to "Ancient Day Saints" or members of the original church. "Saints" in this context refers to all who follow Christ, not to certain specific "holy" persons such as Apostles, martyrs and the like. Though I am no "saint," I am, nevertheless a Saint. So the "LDS" portion of our name comes from that distinction, but the IMPORTANT part of our name is the Church of Jesus Christ. That's why we try to avoid calling ourselves "Mormons" or using the inappropriate shortcut "The Church of the Latter Day Saints."
So the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints continued with this name until 1844, the year that Joseph Smith was martyred. At his death, a dispute arose about succession in the Presidency. The church leadership consisted of a First Presidency, with the President (Prophet) and two counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Joseph had stated that the "keys" to the kingdom would be passed on to the Quorum of the Twelve at his death. But disputes arose anyway. Some believed that his counselors should become his successors like a Vice President might take over for the President in our government. Some believed that the mantle of Prophet should fall on his son, Joseph Smith III. Others believed Brigham Young, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve, should assume the Presidency of the Church.
This confusion resulted in the first split in the church. Several splinter groups were formed. Among those, the most prominent was the group that followed Joseph Smith's wife and son back to Jackson County Missouri. At some point, there was apparently a court decision made (according to this group) that gave legal succession to Joseph Smith III and made it the legitimate successor. For some reason, this group decided to change its name to "The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." By that name it no longer exists. It split into at least two factions sometime within the last decade or so and now that name remains in the legal custody of "The Community of Christ" which downplays its "Mormon" roots and has more traditional Christian beliefs. The other group "The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" sticks to its roots, with family members of Joseph Smith still in charge to this day, as far as I know. Neither of these groups EVER went to Utah or practiced polygamy. They reject outright the idea that Joseph Smith revealed or practiced polygamy.
The rest of the "Mormons" (so called, incidentally, because in addition to the Bible we believe in the "Book of Mormon" a compilation of Ancient American writings abridged by the Prophet Mormon) united behind Brigham Young and moved to Utah. They retained the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and became the church that today most people know. After arrival in Utah, the practice of polygamy became public and fierce opposition to the practice began to appear. Much of it was based on the same sort of concerns that people have about the FLDS sect today. The idea was that women were being forced to marry against their will and this isolated sect had all sorts of evil things going on. In reality only a small percentage of the members of the church were actually involved in polygamy. But some dissidents claimed to have been forced into these marriages against their will, or seeing others who were, and public outrage was inflamed. Personally, I have no problem believing that some of this was true. After all, women (especially in those less enlightened times) were often forced into marriages by unscrupulous men in the monogamous world. (Think of the caricature of the villain tying the poor girl to the railroad tracks to force her into marriage.) Polygamy would be an even bigger opportunity for that sort of abuse. But largely, polygamy was just a lifestyle practiced by Mormons much as it has been in other cultures and times throughout the world.
The people, and ultimately the government, however, could not tolerate this behavior. Over several years, the government did more and more to stop the practice. Statehood was denied to "Deseret" (eventually named Utah for the Ute Indians) while polygamy was in practice. Prosecution against church leaders was started. Brigham Young was removed as territorial governor and an unpopular government representative was put in his place. He claimed that the Mormons were rebelling against him. US troops were sent to Utah to quell the "Mormon uprising" and the US Army still has a battle streamer on its flag for the "Mormon war." (Some say, incidentally, that future Confederate General Johnston was actually using the Mormon issue as an excuse to get pro-Southern forces in place in Utah for a drive to California in the event of a secession.) Though only token harrassment occurred, passions were high. The US Congress passed laws disenfranchising the Church and its members. Ultimately, the US Supreme Court under Chief Justice Morrison Waite ruled that laws against polygamy were not a violation of religious freedom.
Eventually, the church was forced to stop polygamy. But many claimed the practice was still ongoing. So in 1890, the President of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, officially announced that polygamy was no longer supported by the church and that all plural marriages must be stopped immediately. This "Official Declaration" eventually was adopted into the standard works of the church and became scripture. (See http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 ). Future polygamous marriages would result in excommunication of the guilty parties. As a result, the government stopped prosecutions against church members and restored the rights and property of the church. Utah became a state in 1896. Additionally, the government tactily agreed to turn a blind eye on those people ALREADY in plural marriages, figuring that the practice would die a natural death within a generation and that creating, effectively, a large group of widows and orphans was not a great idea. So while no polygamous marriages were performed after 1890, the lifestyle continued for a while afterwards among church members.
Several people, however, thought that President Woodruff had become a "fallen" prophet. So other spinter groups were formed. Many of them broke away immediately, others took decades before the split. (I'm guessing these latter were the sons and daughters of those original plural marriages who had grown up in the lifestyle - and probably more than a few oportunists.) Several groups collectively referred to as "Fundamentalists" faced off against each other, pitting prophet against prophet. Many became violent within themselves and against competing polygamist sects. There were even a few attacks against the now non-polygamist mainstream church. Zealous prosecution of polygamists was no longer a priority, but when violence became a problem law enforcement came into play.
Some people feel like mainstream Mormons refrained from prosecuting polygamists out of sympathy for the lifestyle or because we secretly approve of the practice. That comes from the habit of associating polygamy with the Church. Polygamy is only a very minor factor in church doctrine. We have gotten along very well without it for well over a century. We do not condone or wink at such behavior. More importantly, a far more vital component of LDS doctrine is proper authority. The President of of the FLDS church claims to be a prophet, in direct succession (through John Taylor, third President of the main church) of Joseph Smith, Jr. That places him in direct opposition to Thomas S. Monson, and all of the Presidents of the Church from Wilford Woodruff on. Further, whoever his predecessors in the Presidency of that sect are would be in a similar position. Even if we somehow approved of, or viewed as harmless the sects practices, we would have no affinity with a sect we consider apostate for a much more important reason. As far as any law enforcement agencies that might have mainstream Mormons as members, they would not view the sect with any sympathy. As far as the church itself (the mainstream church, that is) we would have no authority whatsoever over that sect. They do not acknowledge us in any way, except as apostates from the "true" church, and we believe them to be in pretty much the same condition.
Obviously, even if there are those who view polygamy of itself as a matter of cultural difference, when it involves twelve-year olds (and, if we can believe one former member of the church, even molestation of boys) it is a far more serious situation. In this day and age if three or more consenting adults choose to live together, irrespective of gender or lifestyle, it's getting to the point of anything goes. But when one of the members of this sort of "marriage" is barely a teenager, it is time to draw the line. I will say, however, that the wholesale dismantling of numerous families and the incredibly intrusive manner in which it is being done looks more like a witchhunt than a rescue mission. It may be that this sort of thing is warranted, given that it appears that the sect and its leadership condones forced marriage of children and other sexual perversions. But given the history of government interference in religion in general and Mormonism in particular, I'm more than a little skeptical about how much of this is truth and how much is crusading.
Nevertheless, given that there are so many churches (many with very similar names) who have widely varying beliefs, people (quite understandably) think that we are either one and the same or just different facets of a single idea. The church is relatively young. The same sort of splintering has occurred with our religion as with mainstream Christianity (of which our sect is just another "spin off") and other faiths. Calling an FLDS person a "Mormon" is much like calling a Lutheran a Catholic. Our roots are the same, but we are not the same faith at all.
One could argue (and some have) that making such a distinction is much like mainstream Christians claiming that Mormons are not Christians. It's a valid point, but there is a difference. Those Christians who disclaim Mormons as not "true" Christians are talking about spiritual beliefs. They don't generally care that we don't use alcohol, tobacco or coffee. They probably approve, in principle, of our paying of tithes, prohibiting extramarital sex or keeping the sabbath holy. It is our beliefs about God, scripture and other spiritual matters that define our faith to them - and that is fair. We reject FLDS and other splinter groups as part of our faith not because of the spiritual aspects. We may not doctrinally agree with those sects - or other Christian faiths for that matter - but we believe ALL churches have some truth. We would view the FLDS church as doctrinally no different from other sects. It is their practices that concern us. We disagree, often strongly, with Baptist philosophy, but we do not view their practices as un-Christian. We believe Baptists, Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans and all of those other sects are Christian, though we differ with them on matters of doctrine. But when a sect engages in clearly un-Christian behavior - that Westover Baptist group comes to mind - it is not their doctrines but their behaviors that call for denunciation. The eternal state of FLDS members is a matter for God to decide, and each member is an individual. Whatever their sins, Christ's atonement is available to them, as it is for all mankind. But as I am sure many Baptists wish to clarify that they do not condone or wish to be associated with the nutcases at Westover, we feel similarly about the FLDS sect. Just because we share part of a name does NOT mean we are the same, or even sympathetic.
Here endeth the lesson.
-
There you go again, doing that whole elucidation thing. Why can't you just leave us with our mistaken notions of Mormons as a weirdo cult with funny ideas about underwear. You just had to chime in and try to make people understand, didn't you? Oh, and you couldn't just rattle off some half thought out ramble either, you had to explain it all in a well written manner. What the heck is wrong with you?
(Yeah, it's backwards. I think it's funny. I should also add that I'm functioning on 2 hours of sleep and 40 hours of stress. So your individual experience may vary.)
-
Well, I love to read the Poochie man. Gawd, You are indeed a brilliant writer!
Of course, I believe that Catholics are the true Christians. ;)
Peter on that rock.... :)
Thanks for the history lesson. Fantastic read.
-
The Fundy Mormon bunch in Texas seems to be distinguished by the most unstylish dresses currently worn in the US. They make even the Amish look stylish. I am not sure of this, but judging from the women who were interviewed on TV, it also seems that at some point in the initiation to this church, everyone must be whacked with an Ugly Stick.
I am opposed to arranged marriages in general, and arranged marriages of minor girls in particular. It also seems that another necessity of one aged whiskerando having five or six wives is that a large number of young boys are thrown out of the church with little or no education of employable skills, which is also at least as bad, and an even greater burden on the rest of us taxpayers.
They have a right to ugly clothes and faces, but the rest needs to be addressed, really.
-
There you go again, doing that whole elucidation thing. Why can't you just leave us with our mistaken notions of Mormons as a weirdo cult with funny ideas about underwear.
Well, if it helps, my ideas about underwear are hilarious.
You just had to chime in and try to make people understand, didn't you? Oh, and you couldn't just rattle off some half thought out ramble either, you had to explain it all in a well written manner. What the heck is wrong with you?
It's a serious case of hyperchronomanitis. (Too much time on my hands.) I love making up words - as if I don't use enough already. :D
-
Well, I love to read the Poochie man. Gawd, You are indeed a brilliant writer!
Of course, I believe that Catholics are the true Christians. ;)
Peter on that rock.... :)
Thanks for the history lesson. Fantastic read.
So if the Catholic church were to start a cable network that broadcast mass 24 hours a day would that be Rock Around the Clock? :D
-
The Fundy Mormon bunch in Texas seems to be distinguished by the most unstylish dresses currently worn in the US. They make even the Amish look stylish. I am not sure of this, but judging from the women who were interviewed on TV, it also seems that at some point in the initiation to this church, everyone must be whacked with an Ugly Stick.
Apparently they are attractive enough to the FLDS guys that they can't stop at just one. . .
-
Apparently they are attractive enough to the FLDS guys that they can't stop at just one. . .
And the ad at the bottom of this page as I read that is "Meet Mormon Women". And the three pictured look kinda cute.
-
Well, I love to read the Poochie man. Gawd, You are indeed a brilliant writer!
Of course, I believe that Catholics are the true Christians. ;)
Peter on that rock.... :)
Thanks for the history lesson. Fantastic read.
So if the Catholic church were to start a cable network that broadcast mass 24 hours a day would that be Rock Around the Clock? :D
LOL....YEP....There is a program on EWTN --Life On The Rock.... I do think that there are varying degress of "TRUE Christians", Poochie....not just Catholics. Indeed, everyone thinks "their faith" is the best and only faith.
Only God will tell in the end ;)
Cynthia
-
Is the FLDS church very diffrent from the organisation as it was with Brigam Young?
-
Is the FLDS church very diffrent from the organisation as it was with Brigam Young?
Good question. There were many differences. Brigham Young and the original church was forced into isolation for its own protection. Long before polygamy became common knowledge Latter Day Saints were persecuted, prosecuted and even ordered exterminated for their religious beliefs, their political and economic power. FLDS chose to isolate itself because of its practices - which aside from polygamy apparently include child molestation. Nobody was trying to kill them, steal their lands or rape their women (except their own men, if the charges are true). They have little economic or political clout. The only legitimate concern they have is that the government would prosecute them for polygamy.
Moreover, if the charges we hear are true (and I keep an open mind on that issue) widespread molestation and forced marriages of young girls and even molestation of boys is happening. Now the one young man who made this latter allegation (as far as I have seen) implicated Warren Jeffs and this might be a case of one isolated pervert who happens to have gained a position of power. It might even be someone making untrue claims - stranger things have happened. But the man seemed credible. So at least the leader is engaging in decidedly un-Christian behaviors - and certainly nothing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young ever preached.
The comparison, though, does have some validity. The Saints in Utah were, effectively, an isolated group (especially since the mass media we have today was unavailable). They practiced polygamy and appeared quite secretive, to the point of paranoia. But given the persecution they were going through and the mob violence they had suffered in three different states - including the murder of their prophet - that attitude was rational. Even the government was no help to them - in fact, even before the polygamy issue it was often a large part of the problem. They had a charismatic, powerful leader who practiced what most people considered to be a perverse lifestyle. They were quite prepared to follow that leader's bidding, even if it meant going to war. That is one of the reasons why many historians who do not believe that Brigham young was directly responsible for Mountain Meadows still believe that he is culpable or at least tacitly condoned it by not acting. They find it hard to believe something so significant was going down and Brother Brigham was unaware of it.
But on the other hand, they were not seeking to disassociate themselves with mainstream society. They enlisted a Battalion to join the US Army and go to the Mexican war, though that became moot by the time they arrived on the scene. They invited journalists and others to visit them. They conducted trade with travelers passing through Utah. The reason for their isolation, as I said, was a very real need for security. Moreover, the style of dress and behavior they exhibited was not strange for the time. They engaged in normal social activities such as dances, concerts and shows. The communities they built were not isolated compounds, but cities open to all.
I have discovered no evidence that there was an ugly stick involved in early church rituals, but since they were out in the middle of nowhere it probably wouldn't have mattered to the men . . .
-
Pretty interesting info there, Pooch.
Thanks!
PS On a personal note, I was flipping through my Itunes the other day re-packing my Shuffle and ran across "Oz's Lion". Brought back some nice memories.
B
-
I have discovered no evidence that there was an ugly stick involved in early church rituals, but since they were out in the middle of nowhere it probably wouldn't have mattered to the men . . .
==========================================================================
I would think that way out in the middle of nowhere, belly dancing costumes and otherr provocative garb might be favored. But apparently not. Apparently, FLDS women prefer hideous shapeless garments and feel that God and their shared hubby appreciates them more when they forgo makeup of all sorts.
I have always been of the opinion that there is some point (not normally ever reached where I live) where a woman is so ugly that a young sheep, goat or cow might be more tempting. Or even a man or boy. At this point, there should be some glamorization of the female population or the colony simply expires for lack of progeny.
Perhaps the ageing FLDS elders have poor eyesight and cannot see that their many wives are less attractive than Woody Allen or Arnold Stang, or perhaps they just put a bag over their heads and procreate that way. Maybe they turn off the lights. Who knows?
There are mysteries within this rather weirdo cult that could only be answered by ones living there.
-
Pretty interesting info there, Pooch.
Thanks!
PS On a personal note, I was flipping through my Itunes the other day re-packing my Shuffle and ran across "Oz's Lion". Brought back some nice memories.
B
Glad you found it interesting, Brass.
Oz's Lion was a fun song for me to try to write. I think the closest it came to Prince was Martin Prince from the Simpsons, but it was a fun set of lyrics to play with, and nice to step out of my style.
How is Many Hands coming along? Have you done any more films? Or has the position of family man slowed down the process? :D
-
I have discovered no evidence that there was an ugly stick involved in early church rituals, but since they were out in the middle of nowhere it probably wouldn't have mattered to the men . . .
==========================================================================
I would think that way out in the middle of nowhere, belly dancing costumes and otherr provocative garb might be favored. But apparently not. Apparently, FLDS women prefer hideous shapeless garments and feel that God and their shared hubby appreciates them more when they forgo makeup of all sorts.
I have always been of the opinion that there is some point (not normally ever reached where I live) where a woman is so ugly that a young sheep, goat or cow might be more tempting. Or even a man or boy. At this point, there should be some glamorization of the female population or the colony simply expires for lack of progeny.
Perhaps the ageing FLDS elders have poor eyesight and cannot see that their many wives are less attractive than Woody Allen or Arnold Stang, or perhaps they just put a bag over their heads and procreate that way. Maybe they turn off the lights. Who knows?
There are mysteries within this rather weirdo cult that could only be answered by ones living there.
No mystery at all. To some men the sole qualification for a snuggling partner is the presence of the word "yes" in her vocabulary.
Of course, even that doesn't seem to have been required in some of these cases. . .
btw. Dude. Sheep? You are one baaaaaaad boy.
-
Dirty Deeds Done With Sheep
Parody of "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap" by AC/DC
If you're having trouble with your barnyard friends,
You got a thing for ewes,
Been counting sheep, but you're not in bed,
Here's what you gotta do.
Get out the barn, stay off the farm,
Go read a nursery rhyme.
Don't ring 976-BAAA,
That kind of love's a crime.
Dirty deeds, done with sheep,
Dirty deeds, Little Bo Peep,
Dirty deeds, done with sheep,
Dirty deeds and they're done with sheep,
Dirty deeds and they're done with sheep.
My friend Larry has a little lamb,
Her fleece is white as snow,
He keeps bragging about her night and day,
Someone should tell him no.
Look at the flock, they're all in shock,
Here comes that mutton fan,
Knock off the fleece, give them some peace,
Don't be a barnyard man.
Dirty deeds, done with sheep,
Dirty deeds, Little Bo Peep,
Dirty deeds, done with sheep,
Dirty deeds and they're done with sheep,
Dirty deeds and they're done with sheep.
Velcro gloves, kneepads, late-night dates.
Done with sheep.
Warning signs, electric fences, high voltage.
Done with sheep.
Dirty deeds, don't tell 'em what I done to ewe,
Done with sheep.
Dirty deeds, dirty deeds, done with sheep.
SPOKEN: Quiet gals. I think the shepherd's coming.
-
Brigham Young?s endorsement of polygamy?spoofed in Twain?s
Roughing It by an engraving of Young?s wives sharing a huge bedstead and
a joking reference to the ??deafening noise?? of 72 women snoring?
receives scrutiny in Eric A. Eliason?s ??Mark Twain, Polygamy, and the
Origin of an American Motif ?? (MTJ 38, i [2000]: 2?6). Apparently
Roughing It ??contains the Ž rst known graphic and written representation
of this visual stereotype of the Mormon Bed.?? Accordingly, ??the motif ?s
entry into the American popular culture is a tribute to his comic genius
worth noting.??
http://als.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/2001/1/97.pdf
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24245576/?GT1=43001
Flds fashion sense
-
Men are so transparent.
How do you think the women felt having the ugly men ON TOP OF THEM?
My god.
Those women are not as ugly as the ugliness within the mindset of the men who raped them.
I respond to the essence of those mothers ....as loving god fearing MOTHERS..period.
What do men want in a woman?
Beauty is only skin deep, fellas.
Goats, sheep, moose, geese.
My goodness..................such a transparent view of the beast within.
Men are such toys. Men are beholden to the essence of this world....female.
-
Men are such toys. Men are beholden to the essence of this world....female.
Oh good gravy. Don't go there, please.
-
Those women are not as ugly as the ugliness within the mindset of the men who raped them.
Actually, how they dress has little to do with how attractive women are. The right clothes can certainly enhance a person's appearance but in over three decades I have yet to see my wife in something that makes her look bad.
I do worry, however, about whether this is a witch hunt. There is a story circulating on the net that says the call for help was a hoax. If this is about child abuse or forced marriage, that's one thing. But if the big crime here is nothing more than polygamy, the government is wrong to go this far.
-
But if the big crime here is nothing more than polygamy, the government is wrong to go this far.
I agree, but I would point out, whether one does agree will probably depend on one's view of polygamy. Many people consider it simply unacceptable and a form of spousal and/or child abuse unto itself. My guess is that the people in charge of prosecuting this case will take that stance. And we'll probably get a round of women on news channels and news websites talking about they had to escape polygamy. My gut feeling is that no point is the general public likely to get much, if any, exposure to anything that looks at polygamy in a positive light or even just to some degree sympathetically.
-
I agree, but I would point out, whether one does agree will probably depend on one's view of polygamy. Many people consider it simply unacceptable and a form of spousal and/or child abuse unto itself.
The problem is that such a view is too black and white. If two women decide to marry one man and raise a family together, that in itself is just another lifestyle. Provided the home is otherwise stable and the children are afforded the appropriate educational, medical and other needs, calling it abuse is purely subjective. If one of those women is forced into the marriage, or is 14 years old, it's a whole different story. That's clearly illegal. But otherwise, the same arguments could be (and have been) used against gay marriage, interracial marriage, etc.
Now I am not arguing that law enforcement ought not to enforce the law. Polygamy is illegal and the US Supreme Court long ago upheld that. I'm just not sure that the draconian approach to this sect - tearing aparts hundreds of people in numerous families - is the way to go about this. But then again, how do you determine who to prosecute here? Do we center on the men? After all, technically the women are each only married to one man. OTOH this is not the bigamist with a wife in two different cities, each blissfully unaware of the other. The moms were in on the crime as well. So do we send the whole bunch to jail and farm out the kids? Then again, though the moms may even have allowed and aided the sexual activities with the children, what if the moms themselves are only children? I suspect the legal ramifications of this case are a knotty nightmare.
More than anything, though, I smell a rat. The sensationalist portrayal of this group seems almost unbelievable. To paraphrase a well-know caveat: "If something seems too bad to be true, it probably isn't."
-
If one of those women is ... 14 years old, it's a whole different story. That's clearly illegal.
There are states where that is still legal.
-
Men are such toys. Men are beholden to the essence of this world....female.
Oh good gravy. Don't go there, please.
;D
-
If polagamy were made leagal , would prosicution for bigamy still be possible?
Would disclosure of spoces already existing be a requirement , perhaps a line on the application form ?
Could it still be forbidden to marry the same sex?
Marrage groups might be formed , in which several men are married to several men and women who are also married themselves to several others,...
... ever read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"? When a caricter in this futuristic novel suggests prohibiting "fornication" the rules comittee has to look the term up in an old dictionary.
-
I mentioned the men marrying ugly women with regard to this topic, because it seems that in the FLDS, it is the men who decide whom and how many women to marry. The women interviewed all seemed to think that aranged marriages between teenyboppers and aged and wizened whiskerandos was the most normal thing in the world.
If polygamy were legal, then bigamy would only be illegal perhaps if someone concealed his marriage to wifey 1 from Wifey 2 or vice versa. I think that a woman or man should enjoy disclosure as to the maritial status of anyone that they marry.
I don't know whether this would be the case or not, because it would depend on the law allowing polygamy.
Apparently, in the US we are all actually free to be polygamous, so long as we live in isolation and keep it secret. After the Short Creek raids, nearly everyone eventually returned to their former families and customs.
-
I mentioned the men marrying ugly women with regard to this topic, because it seems that in the FLDS, it is the men who decide whom and how many women to marry.
There haven't been any spinsters mentioned in reports from this case. Is there a duty for these men to provide a husband for each woman ?
-
Apparently, in the US we are all actually free to be polygamous, so long as we live in isolation and keep it secret.
Actually, secrecy is not required. I know plenty of polygamous arrangements. As long as there is no more than one "legal" wedding per person, there is nothing wrong with it.
-
Apparently, in the US we are all actually free to be polygamous, so long as we live in isolation and keep it secret.
Actually, secrecy is not required. I know plenty of polygamous arrangements. As long as there is no more than one "legal" wedding per person, there is nothing wrong with it.
Is full disclosure required?
-
Is full disclosure required?
In the cases that I know of, since they all live in the same house, they all know about each other.
It's not hard to postulate a situation where disclosure does not occur, but it seems not to be the norm.
-
There haven't been any spinsters mentioned in reports from this case. Is there a duty for these men to provide a husband for each woman ?
============================================================\
Originally, this is what Bigamy Young claimed, when people mentioned that he had 56 wives (or however many that was): he said that (a) all women by LDS scripture should be bound or sealed to a man in order to attain a decent place in Heaven (b) and a lot of husbands died before their wives, so (c) he married them out of Christian charity so as to comply with (a).
I have heard nothing about what spinsters in the FLDS Church. Perhaps they see a duty to widows, perhaps they don't. Maybe all the young women are married off, perhaps the undesireable ones are driven off like the excess boys. There is always the possibility that some sweet young thing gets knocked up and the potential sister wives can't stand her. I have no idea what might happen in such a case.
Eventually, it is always possible that some smart woman will escape from this compound and sell an entertaining book and get on Oprah and do the whole Nine Yards Tour. "I was a Sex Slave in the FDLS" or something like that. Soon to be a Major Motion Picture.
There is already a TV series on a polygamous marriage, called "Big Love".
As a Missourian and a history buff, I know that the main reason that the non-Mormons were so utterly disliked in Missouri was that most of the locals were illliterate squatters who held no title to the lands they occupied. The Mormons were literate, and they had two really annoying features about them: (1) they tended to get revelations about how a piece of land some local hick was farminy was granted to them by the Lord, and they would go file a deed on it, and quite often enlist the aide of the Danites (Mormon militia) to scare said illegally squatting hick off, and (2) they would romance some local gal and marry her as their second, third or fourth wife. This also tended to piss off the local hicks. Again, the Danites were better organized than the posses composed of local hicks.
Eventually a governor was elected by a large number of annoyed hicks, who said that his main platform was to drive the Mormons out of Missouri, and I believe he added that anyone killing a Mormon man would not be prosecuted. Nearly all the Mormons except those in Independence who gave up polygamy fled to Nauvoo, Illinois at that point.
And yes, I know that his real name was Brigham Young. But Bigamy Young is a more fun thing to call him. Mark Twain agreed with me on this.
-
Actually, secrecy is not required. I know plenty of polygamous arrangements. As long as there is no more than one "legal" wedding per person, there is nothing wrong with it.
==================================================================
I have this feeling that legally married wifey No 1 would tend to take great umbrage to her hubby marrying in some extracurricular way, non-legal wifey No. 2.
From one standpoint, I personally could care less if some clown wants to marry a dozen women or so, so long as I do not have to support his numerous excess progeny with my taxes. Still, it is disruptive to a society where monogamy (or to be more specific, serial polygamy) is the norm.
If some FDLS patriarch has 50 children, of whom 25 girls are married at the age of 14 or so to geezers and 23 of his sons are driven out of the compound at the age of 13 to fend for themselves on roots and berries with no useful education, I tend to view this as creating a lot of needless problems for my society, especially since there are not all that many roots and berries left.
My guess is that the excess males are far more likely to end up being thieves, con men, mentally disturbed people and parasites than the average person. That is not a good thing.
-
I have this feeling that legally married wifey No 1 would tend to take great umbrage to her hubby marrying in some extracurricular way, non-legal wifey No. 2.
Perhaps you should meet a few to find out that you're wrong. Most pagans live in group homes with multiple partners. Sometimes it's one male with multiple females, other times it's one female with multiple males, and other times it's multiple males with multiple females.
And all are perfectly legal as long as none of them try to get legal sanction for more than one relationship.
-
My guess is that the excess males are far more likely to end up being thieves, con men, mentally disturbed people and parasites than the average person. That is not a good thing.
For this reason we should forbid raising children in the inner city.
-
I was not into forbidding anything, just suggesting that some options are unwise.
I recommend that you not run red lights, for example, yet I am not about to give anyone a ticket for doing this.
There is a difference between some FLDS geezer who has 56 children with five wives and an assortment of pagans who have a more civilized number of progeny.
Saying that this is not a good thing does not mean that some woman in the inner city having seven kids with seven men is a good thing.
-
Saying that this is not a good thing does not mean that some woman in the inner city having seven kids with seven men is a good thing.
If she is a devotee of Darwin , and considers the promulgation of her gene important , this would be the best course she could choose.
-
>>And all are perfectly legal as long as none of them try to get legal sanction for more than one relationship.<<
And who are we to prevent them from doing so?