The Nehor wrote:That is not true. Reading the private journals of men and women of the period there was humanity there and wives (including plural wives) influenced husbands and husbands influenced women. Most loved each other.
Sure, people loved each other. But when you read about how and why they entered into polygamous unions, women were at a distinct disadvantage, and yes, they were often treated like cattle. One of my ancestors traveled across the plains with her mother in a handcart company. Her mother died along the way, and when she reached Salt Lake City, she was assigned to marry an older man she had never met down in Fillmore. She was not allowed to rest, but her belongings were immediately placed on a wagon and she was shipped down to Fillmore. She was 15 years old. You tell me that there was humanity and love involved here. Or we read about my ancestor who took a second wife instead of hiring a paid servant.
Forgive the slight diversion for I know SOB is just an expression, but I seriously doubt it'd be truly applicable in most circumstances as I imagine that most of their mothers were more on the victim side than the perpetraitor side. (And as a doulbe asside, I tend to reserve SOB for those situations where it is clear that a person't mother is nearly as big a ______ as the person himself).
If the LDS officials out-vote the others on committees, then hands are tied.
But what about the federal government. Surely we can do something . . .
Voters do need to be more informed on what's happening, which is why stories like these, in my opinion, is a good thing.
Works for me. Furthermore, I imagine that LDS officials would be more likely to do something if their constituents really wanted it. If not, why not? I don't see why helping those in need has to be an issue of guilt for their circumstances. Am I missing something here?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
skippy the dead wrote:And let's not forget the young men forced out of the community, so as not to compete for the young girls.
In the old days, they just castrated the ones they didn't want to compete with.
Did anyone in the Church ever publicly apologize for THAT one?
I think not!
I've only heard the one story about that and it was a bishop If I recall correctly. If the story is true, I myself wonder why he wasn't ex'ed (or was he?)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
If anyone wants to know what "polygamy" was like in the early days of the church they have only to look at the FLDS.
Yes, there is some love there. I would suggest there is not the type of emotional intimacy and loving bonds possible in a monogamous marriage but no doubt there are those men and women who care and are concerned for the well being of one another.
No, the women there do not think they are abused or mistreated.
Both men and women will tell you they embrace and are happy with their lifestyle.
Children will not tell of the problems.
Both men and women think they are following God's will every bit as just as those in the early days of the LDS church.
I feel quite certain that just as most of society looks upon the FLDS for its horrors, mainstream society of the day looked upon the early LDS church.
I truly do not see a difference between the FLDS and the polygamy of the early LDS church.... underage girls forced to marry, coercion, reassigning of women, children virtually without fathers, young girls being assigned to older men, boys being cast out, powerful men getting the attractive girls,.... all of it was there long ago.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Maxrep wrote:If I could point to one source, I would say that the cancer eroding the church is polygamy. - IMHO :)
The cancer isn't polygamy but the FLDS. Since they broke off from the true church it seems little wonder to me that they would be plagued with all sorts of problems and abuses.
That is superstitious nonsense!! The problems and abuses stem from their concept of God, not from God himself.
truth dancer wrote:If anyone wants to know what "polygamy" was like in the early days of the church they have only to look at the FLDS.
Yes, there is some love there. I would suggest there is not the type of emotional intimacy and loving bonds possible in a monogamous marriage but no doubt there are those men and women who care and are concerned for the well being of one another.
No, the women there do not think they are abused or mistreated.
Both men and women will tell you they embrace and are happy with their lifestyle.
Children will not tell of the problems.
Both men and women think they are following God's will every bit as just as those in the early days of the LDS church.
I feel quite certain that just as most of society looks upon the FLDS for its horrors, mainstream society of the day looked upon the early LDS church.
I truly do not see a difference between the FLDS and the polygamy of the early LDS church.... underage girls forced to marry, coercion, reassigning of women, children virtually without fathers, young girls being assigned to older men, boys being cast out, powerful men getting the attractive girls,.... all of it was there long ago.
~dancer~
IMHO, If the main church hadn't given up polygamy when it did, the entire enterprise would no doubt have disintegrated into something like what Colorado City is now.
When ever polygamy is talked about it always seems to center around the FLDS clan in Short Creek. Seldom is the polygamist group in Centenial Park (located a few mile from Short Creek) seems to have been able to come up with much better implementation of polygamy. Where girls can be promised at 16 but can not be married until they are 18 years old. A few weeks ago, DateLine NBC did a report on the polygamist of Centenial Park.
Where FLDS are the post child for what's wrong with polygamy, the Centenial Park polygamist would be the poster child of how well a polygamist community can work.
Some polygamist groups may have over come the problems of underage marriages. So should we give the CP polys a break. Or is the mentality here "the only good polygamist is a dead polygamist".
If polygamy was to become legal, then what would the ground rules need to be?
truth dancer wrote:If anyone wants to know what "polygamy" was like in the early days of the church they have only to look at the FLDS.
Yes, there is some love there. I would suggest there is not the type of emotional intimacy and loving bonds possible in a monogamous marriage but no doubt there are those men and women who care and are concerned for the well being of one another.
No, the women there do not think they are abused or mistreated.
Both men and women will tell you they embrace and are happy with their lifestyle.
Children will not tell of the problems.
Both men and women think they are following God's will every bit as just as those in the early days of the LDS church.
I feel quite certain that just as most of society looks upon the FLDS for its horrors, mainstream society of the day looked upon the early LDS church.
I truly do not see a difference between the FLDS and the polygamy of the early LDS church.... underage girls forced to marry, coercion, reassigning of women, children virtually without fathers, young girls being assigned to older men, boys being cast out, powerful men getting the attractive girls,.... all of it was there long ago.
~dancer~
I agree with you. They are happy and content, just like I was at one time with the SLC church. Why, because I was BIC. That is all I knew at the time. This is all they know.
It's like you can't talk colors to a blind man.
Ignorance is bliss, etc.
The only difference between the FLDS today and the pre 1890 SLC church is.........