- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
cwald, fwiw, I certainly don’t agree with or approve of the way it was practiced in the cases that match what you described – and almost everyone who has commented (if not everyone) seems to take that same view. Everyone, the majority of members back in the day were not in a polygamous marriages, even though it was being framed by the leadership as critical to exaltation. That tells me that most members were “not really polygamy kind of” people even back then under those circumstances – and I would say that is even more true today, especially when dealing with simultaneous polygamy in this life.
Dax wrote:When polygamy is connected to ones salvation, however sweetly presented, than that is when it becomes dangerous!
And because it was (and to a certain extent still is) packaged this way, it doesn’t matter how many people actually practiced/practice it. It is a psychological and spiritual burden that is rather callously left on our backs.
Quote:cwald, fwiw, I certainly don’t agree with or approve of the way it was practiced in the cases that match what you described – and almost everyone who has commented (if not everyone) seems to take that same view.
Fine. Forget about the manipulation and salvation clause at the end.
Still, yes. But EVERY CASE in the mormon church matches this first description. 100% of them.
cwald wrote:If the prophet came out and told us that polygamy was now in affect and women can take as many men for husbands as they wish…but men can only be married to one woman…
So. My question stands.
Are the folks here who don’t understand why there might be posters on this site who are calling religious polygamy, “evil”, okay wearing the shoe as I asked?
If religious polygamy is okay. Than is it okay when it is stated this way as well? “If the prophet came out and told us that polygamy was now in affect and women can take as many men for husbands as they wish…but men can only be married to one woman.”
Correction: 100% of the polygamist marriages in Brigham Young’s era. That is why I stated earlier that I have much more respect for Joseph and his vision of “marriage” than I have for BY…whom I consider…
Well never mind.
Ray…..Not sure if this answers your question but feel free to elaborate if it does not. Do I feel that all forms of marriage are dangerous? No. I don’t even care if people are in a polygamous relationship as long as it is not tied to or taught that it is necessary for either persons eternal salvation.
And I have to agree with Clwad,Ann and others that the examples that were given are not stereotypes it is what any form of RELIGIOUS polygamy boils down to period if you link eternal salvation to the practice..
What I meant to ask, dax, is if you consider tying marriage of any kind to salvation / exaltation to be evil (especially if allowances are made for that arrangement to be made after death for those who aren’t married in morality or are married to someone with whom they don’t want to be married after death). Sorry that wasn’t clear. cwald, again, I agree with you – but I would have no problem with the President of the Church saying that men and women could make whatever marriage arrangements they want, including same-sex marriage (with some obvious exceptions, like incestuous marriages). I would have a problem if it was only women who could have multiple husbands, which is one of the reasons I don’t like the way it was “codified” under Brigham Young. We now can seal everyone to everyone to whom they were married in this life (with the explanation that it will be worked out after death), regardless of sex/gender, and that’s the way I want it to be.
It’s not plural marriage with which I have a problem; it’s coerced marriage, marriage by assignment, arrangements that favor one group over another, etc. It’s polygamy under Brigham Young, not necessarily plural marriage in its entirety under Joseph Smith – although, again, I have issues with some of what he did, as well.
As to everyone else, they can answer for themselves –
and it’s a very good question. Thanks Ray for the clarification, I’m happy to answer your question. No I do not think that connecting many types of marriages to a religious source and thereby placing an expectation of some sort of reckoning in the next life is evil at all. I think that it is a wonderful thing to believe that a marriage relationship between you and your partner is connected to God and therefore has a higher purpose other than simple socio-economic stability.
My issue is when a “spiritual” leader or religion institutes polygamy as a “commandment for salvation/exaltation” or even to simply be a member of its “spiritual message”. It ALWAYS comes with the women having to sacrifice themselves sexually and emotionally as they “display” there faith and obedience to church leaders. The “spiritual” leaders use coercion and threats of damnation to not only the women themselves but also their children who will be led astray by their mothers disobedience thereby being dammed themselves due to her lack of faith.
The question cwlad presented regarding if polygamy was reversed is relevant. The sad truth is men would not tolerate polygamy as it is practiced by religions if roles were reversed. Women though, well they should follow the counsel of their male spiritual leaders or priesthood holders. Religous polygamy is applied and forced upon women in the same way regardless of name, it simply comes from a differnet messenger. And no polygamy is not a true principle because it is found in so many religions, polygamy is found in so many religions because men are men the world over.
I’m sorry but we are always saying on this board that the Gospel is true but the church is made up of fallible men. Ok, well that may explain BY 40-what 50 something wives, but it also makes connecting polygamy to women’s eternal salvation a evil practice in this world. I have no problem with multiple sealings or ending marriages in the next life or however God sees fit to sort things out correctly.
Here on earth though I do believe that it is evil to force women to agree to anything sexually based I.e. marriage to someone you are assigned to or traded for, multiple wives, marriage of young girls and teenagers to older men etc. by blackmailing them with eternal damnation if not followed.
Okay long answer to your question. Sorry just wanted to make clear my reasoning.
The following comes from a PDF available online concerning the Apostolic United Brethren. Here is the entire document available at utah.gov: http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/cmsdocuments/The_Primer.pdf The following text is taken from a public statement issued by AUB leaders, regarding their beliefs and practices, on March 17th, 2008:
1. We are, and always have been, wholly opposed to abuse and oppression of any kind, and we feel it our duty to promptly report any suspected abuse to the proper law enforcement authorities.
2. We do not encourage or permit “child-bride” marriages or arranged marriages. Instead, it is a fundamental principle of our faith that it is the sacred privilege of all, male and female, when they are adequately mature, to choose whom they will marry. Forced, arranged, or assigned marriages are not a part of our belief or practice.
3. We try to encourage our people to take care of their own needs and to entirely avoid any reliance upon the government. Though there are some members of our faith who may have received government assistance, they are encouraged to become self-sustaining as soon as possible. Our teachings are to be honorable in all our financial dealings which includes full payment of all required taxes as well as avoiding debt.
4. Although we have not had any affiliation with the FLDS for nearly 60 years due to some of these very issues, we are nevertheless deeply concerned that Texas state agencies have violated God-given and Constitutional rights of the FLDS community at the YFZ ranch contrary to principles and freedoms that iconic America stands for.
In summary, we do not support abuse of any kind, and feel that the perpetrator, whether it be an individual, a group, or a government, ought to be held accountable for perpetrating abuse. We believe in being honest in our financial dealings and in providing for our own people. We are appreciative of this good country in which we are allowed to worship Almighty God, and we willingly pay our taxes so that these and other freedoms may be enjoyed by all. We do not condone underage, assigned, or incestuous relationships. We abhor compulsion and oppression in all its forms and support those laws that seek to properly address these issues.
* * *
Marriage below the age of 18 is strongly discouraged for first marriages and is prohibited for plural marriages. Courtship is a matter of choice between the parties, though authorization to court is first obtained from priesthood and family authorities. Husbands are expected to consult with and obtain the consent of existing wives before considering courtship with another potential bride. The husband or father is looked to as the patriarchal leader, but consultation with his wives is considered an important part of family government.
The AUB priesthood council encourages cooperation with law enforcement wherever appropriate. Law enforcement personnel involved in an investigation may benefit from soliciting the help of the ecclesiastical leadership while making clear the scope of the investigation.
…
Many grown children accept and maintain the religion of their parents; however, some do not. Although no statistics are available, perhaps as many as fifty percent of grown children of AUB members do not continue in the religion, although most maintain life-long family relationships with their AUB relatives. Such grown children who disassociate themselves from the religion, including many who are sons and daughters of AUB ecclesiastical leaders, are not exiled, yet they generally withdraw on their own, and this is in keeping with the concepts of agency promulgated by the group.
Can AUB females marry multiple male husbands? If not…why is okay for AUB males to marry multiple females?
So far only Ray and Dax has answered my previous question. I would be interested in ANYONE defending the concept. Very interested.
Cwald, I am with you. I think that what’s good for the geese should be good for the gander. They actually discussed that on the show, and Kody said it would be disgusting for women to have multiple husbands. LIke you, I’d be more comfortable accepting polygamy as a practice if it went both ways. I know that there have been some commenters at W&T that believe in LDS tribal anarchical relationships in which they are essentially group marriages, rather than simply polygynous or polyandrous marriages. (I think the term is polyamorous.) Once again, I think polygamy is wrong, but the Browns do present an interesting perspective, and my of posting the above was merely to say that the AUB practice is for “consenting” adults, not child brides, or having the prophet assign marriages. I’ll give them credit for that. AUB people enter polygynous relationships willingly. From page 11 of the PDF above, the AUB “do not view themselves in opposition to, or in competition with, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Nor do they view themselves as an entirely separate religion. Rather, they view themselves as a priesthood body whose work runs parallel with that of the LDS Church. For this reason, most AUB adherents generally maintain a fond feeling toward the LDS Church and its members, and they strive to support the LDS Church’s good works whenever possible.”
It should be noted that Kody Brown served an LDS mission to Texas. His parents converted while he was on his mission, and then he joined after his mission.
Mormonheritic ….I’m sorry I’m not trying to beat a dead horse and I appreciate that you condemn forced polygamy or child brides and that you have found such detailed and precise information about the AUB polygamy practices. I believe though that you and I disagree on the fact that i believe if the AUB believes and teaches that polygamy is essential for salvation then the women regardless of what the pr department publishes are being coerced ever so completely into practicing polygamy for fear of lossing their salvation. The women then in turn teach it to their daughters and the cycle continues.
Also I wonder how many of the kids that leave AUB feel like many of us here do and wonder if perhaps they will have lost part their salvation for not following their churches dictates.
Again thanks for condemning the many horrors that usually occur with religious polygamy.
cwald wrote:Let me ask a question.
If the prophet came out and told us that polygamy was now in affect and women can take as many men for husbands as they wish…but men can only be married to one woman…
You okay with that?
And then the prophet comes out and tells you that you need to marry a women who is 30 years your senior who already has 7 husbands in order to be obedient and ensure your place within the community, and ensure your salvation…
Still feel okay with all that?
Sometimes you need to wear the shoe and see how it fits.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
i would tell them where to stick it….but I already didn’t agree with it for the men either….and I have no doubt it was a doctrine of men not God. I do wish the church would talk about behaivour more and ordinances less….the more i think about ordinances the more they sound like trinkets trinkets cobbled together to try to help the goofy hairless apes understand cosmic principals.
To me the perfect day at church would be discussing principals and their application in our lives….each feeling comfortable to talk about their personal struggles and how to apply th egospel principals to those struggles…and our leaders would be arbitrators of the discussions, andwould be people who understand the importance of knowing what we don’t know and would be there to help us through care and understanding….and nobody would care what I wore that day or what me and my chosen spouse did in the bedroom…
Wow…I think I am becoming a hippie
PS: Scientific studies actually show that human biology is designed for the female to have multiple partners and men and women are designed “down there” in such a way as to have only the strongest of the “little fellers” survive. Male historical dominence over women is mostly based on male insecurity and a desire to assure his genes continue on in future generations. The reality is it make more sense for women to have multiple spouses than it does for men…..at least from a “we want the next generation to be better than us” perspective. Seriously…I am becoming a hippie…i am a little old for that…sheesh
johnh wrote:Seriously…I am becoming a hippie…i am a little old for that…sheesh
Yeah, me too. Which is why I’m okay with Joseph Smith for the most part.
Ann wrote:Dax wrote:When polygamy is connected to ones salvation, however sweetly presented, than that is when it becomes dangerous!
And because it was (and to a certain extent still is) packaged this way, it doesn’t matter how many people actually practiced/practice it. It is a psychological and spiritual burden that is rather callously left on our backs.
This is probably the biggest problem with it.
Mind you, don’t we still present marriage as essential to salvation, albeit monogamy? Some people are going to have a much easier time getting married than others, for whatever reason, and some are going to rush in, and regret later.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.