|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Hello! I'm new here and just wanted to pop in and join some of the discussion regarding polygamy, Big Love, and the FLDS Church. I was born and raised in the FLDS Church, my father had 4 wives and 31 children; I was his 28th child. I left the FLDS when I was 19 and joined the Marines to get away. I am now a Baptist Minister working in prison minister and Christian Theological Education (discipleship). I've also written a book about my experiences growing up in a polygamist Mormon home. Its the first book from the male perspective. Most folks out there don't understand the pressure that young men are under to be worthy of remaining in the community. If each worthy man has to have at least three wives to progress to godhood, then for every plural wife he takes a young man has to be driven from the community. If he has three wives, then two of them are plural wives, and two men have to go! That means that right off the bat at least 2/3rds of the male population in a polygamist community have to go. But the elite aren't content with just three wives. Many have more than that. Winston Blackmore who was resently arrested in Canada has 20 wives. That means that 19 are extra and 19 young men have to leave just for him to have those wives. Warren Jeffs is rumored to have over 120 wives. That means 119 young men have to go just for this one man to have that many wives. A conservative estimate would be that 75% of the male population has to be found unworthy and driven from the community. Now...imagine that you're a mother in that community and you have 4 sons. Which 1 gets to stay and which 3 are you going to allow them to drive from your life? The weeding out process is a silent process. There aren't clear cut rules, its hidden, its secret, its political. -- -Brian Mackert Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy". -- Edited by Illegitimate at 04/03/2009 6:02 AM PDT -- Edited by Illegitimate at 04/03/2009 6:04 AM PDT
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(64 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 7:21 PM
|
> It appears that women, especially, need to get over
> their desire for one husband. What exactly are the
> men "getting over" or "giving up" by having sex with
> numerous women and girls?
> How is impregnating numerous women/girls
> "suppressing" their sexual desires?
When I made the comment I was speaking strictly of what is taught the women. Men give up nothing sexually but have to learn to manage their wives and families to rule over them as it were.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(63 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 7:15 PM
|
> You are right that women don't have any say in their
> lives. They are told who to marry and when to marry.
> Refusing to marry who the prophet tells you to marry
> y is like refusing to obey God Himself. Your very
> salvation is at stake. This is the pressure applied
> to these girls. I have known of a very small number
> that refused a choice made for them, they were smart
> enough to know that they weren't about to risk losing
> a girl from the system by forcing her to marry and
> instead married her to the man she selected. But
> these cases are rare and still involve them being
> told when to marry, and even when a girl makes her
> choice known, it still has to meet with the prophet's
> approval.
>
> EV is right that there isn't much concern about
> sexual gratification. Sex is not talked about, it is
> only for procreation. Sexual fulfillment is a part
> of the desires of the flesh that they are trying to
> subdue in their probationary period here on earth.
> It is only through subduing the desires of the flesh
> h and mastering our flesh that we can hope to
> progress towards being holy and righteous enough to
> make it to Godhood. And that is what plural marriage
> is all about, overcoming our fleshly and emotional
> desires (especially a woman's need to be the only one
> for her husband). The two are intertwinned, you
> cannot progress to Godhood without plural marriage
> and without subduing the desires of your flesh.
>
> --
> -Brian Mackert
> Minister & Author of
> "Illegitimate -
> How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
It appears that women, especially, need to get over their desire for one husband. What exactly are the men "getting over" or "giving up" by having sex with numerous women and girls?
How is impregnating numerous women/girls "suppressing" their sexual desires?
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(62 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 7:01 PM
|
> Brian,
> A few days ago, in this thread, you mentioned the
> notion that polygamy was intended to be a method
> within the FLDS to keep the people from falling
> victim to their sexual desires.
>
> I can understand how this could easily be the case
> for the women, actually girls, but I can't imagine
> how polygamy keeps the men from making bad decisions
> regarding their sexual relations.
>
> Can you explain in more detail how this works?
I don't remember making that statement, perhaps I'm not recognizing it because of the way you worded it, can you give me the quote please?
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(61 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 6:55 PM
|
Brian,
A few days ago, in this thread, you mentioned the notion that polygamy was intended to be a method within the FLDS to keep the people from falling victim to their sexual desires.
I can understand how this could easily be the case for the women, actually girls, but I can't imagine how polygamy keeps the men from making bad decisions regarding their sexual relations.
Can you explain in more detail how this works?
|
|
|
Posts:
162
Registered:
2/28/09
|
|
(60 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 6:48 PM
|
> I'm not sure where all this "3 wife rule to get into
> the Celestial Kingdom" stuff came from and you are
> probly more interested in going forth in the ministry
> that you have than opening up old wounds.
>
> I don't think the FLDS or flds types can blame
> outsiders for starting those rumors and I don't think
> that this particular doctrine was ever articulated in
> Mormon scripture or even put down in print from the
> major players like JS or BY -- therefore we're left
> with what? Rumor? Minor "Prophets"?
>
The Journal Of Discourses includes numerous examples of Brigham Young screeching from the pulpit of the old SLC tabernacle, reminding the 'saints' that, indeed, 3 wives are required to enter #3 C heaven.
My polygamous ancestor with only 2 wives worried about it but he couldn't afford a third family. I guess he just wasn't 'righteous' enough.
The JOD was considered 'doctrine' by the mormons; right up until they decided it was NOT doctrine and ordered all copies in saints' homes returned (consecrated) to the 'church'.
|
|
|
Posts:
10,818
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(59 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 5:25 PM
|
Thank you, IT.
When somebody uses the words "homosexual agenda," I find myself wondering about THEIR agenda.
As to my tag - I change tags every now and then, and this one caught my eye when I read an interview with Harry Dean Stanton (Roman). It seemed to fit with some lengthy discussions on other threads about psychological disorders and whether they applied to certain characters (and posters).
I do think, though, that when we apply a label to a person we often stop looking at the person, and judge them by the label.
On these boards, for example, I've occasionally been charged with beliefs I don't hold at all, simply because I'm labeled a "liberal," and therefore I'm assumed to think a certain way, regardless of what I've actually said, or not said, on the subject.
I'm surprised at how vehement your post seemed to be, btw, Brian. It seemed to come from nowhere. Please note that I did not use the word homophobe, or suggest it, and I did not try to dictate to you - I simply said I was disappointed to see you use that particular phrase.
I'd definitely like to go back to the topic of the thread. Please?
Edit: While I had this open, I got interrrupted, and I see the subject has moved on - or rather, back - to the thread topic.
On the subject of labels, we on the outside tend to think of FLDS men as patriarchal (and not in a good way), and FLDS women as submissive. Is that true, Brian?
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
--
Edited by Marionj2 at 04/09/2009 2:32 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(58 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 5:22 PM
|
> I would be thrilled if this thread could continue
> e the conversation we were previously having, which
> was an extremely interesting and valuable one.
I agree and will not be discussing the homosexual issue any further so that we stay on topic. I've really enjoyed the discussion so far and would like to keep it moving. There have been many great questions from this group here and I look forward to many more.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
|
|
|
Posts:
165
Registered:
3/12/09
|
|
(57 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 4:47 PM
|
I think Marion's point was that there is no "homosexual agenda." It's widly considered to be a straw man outside of conservative circles.
Also, I agree with her. We have a thousand other threads for the discussion of homosexuality and homosexual rights in a number of shades and colors. I would be thrilled if this thread could continue the conversation we were previously having, which was an extremely interesting and valuable one.
--
Edited by InterestingTimes at 04/09/2009 1:51 PM PDT
--
Edited by InterestingTimes at 04/09/2009 1:58 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(56 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 4:11 PM
Rate this post:
|
> I'm disappointed that you would use a term like
> "homosexual agenda driven," but since the topic of
> this thread has nothing to do with same-sex marriage,
> I hope we can leave that subject to other threads and
> keep this one for its intended purpose - which is
> certainly a broad enough subject.
I agree that the subject isn't the topic of this thread. Is there something wrong with the term "homosexual agenda"? I disagree with your signature line too. Labeling something doesn't mean that you dismiss it. Yes there are those who label something so that they can dismiss it, of that fact I am far too familar with when people call me "Anti-Mormon" so that they can then dismiss the theological arguments that I raise. But terms and labels help is define something which is the primary purpose of a term or label, and there is nothing wrong with it when used appropriately.
Let's look at science. Oh, nope can't call the process of scientific discovery science because that's a label or a term and by labeling it or using a term that defines it means I'm dismissing it! No! I haven't dismissed science or the scientific process by labeling it, I believe in the scientific process and proven scientific methods for arriving at an accurate conclusion.
It's like the LDS Mormons not wanting people to use the term "Fundamentalist Mormon" or "Polygamist Mormon" simply because they find the term offensive or because they believe that they are the only ones entitled to the term Mormon. The word Mormon defines their belief system for those who know what they believe without a lengthy explanation of that belief system.
The term "Mormon" was originally used for those who are followers of Joseph Smith and believers in the Book of Mormon.
The term "Fundamentalist" defines a subset of what ever term follows who hold to the foundational teachings of that group. So Fundamentalist Mormon is a accurate term or label to use regardless of what the LDS Mormons think.
Labels are useful because they keep conversations brief and to the point.
I'm "white", yet there are those who would use the term "white" to dismiss me as a racist and not worth listening to. But to say that I'm "white" to identify my complextion or race doesn't dismiss me, my thoughts, my feelings or anything like that. It simply defines a characteristic about me.
Using the term or label "Homosexual" doesn't make me a "homophobe" which is another label or term. Saying that there is a "Homosexual agenda" doesn't dismiss homosexuals or the rights that they are striving for when it comes to equality. It simply identifies that there are homosexuals who have an agenda.
Do I get offended when someone says that I have a "Conservative Christian Agenda"? NO! Why? Because politically I'm a conservative, theologically I'm a Christian, and if I'm politically active in changing the world according to those two world views (which I'm not) then I would have an agenda and that is an accurate definition. Yes there are those who would use the term to dismiss me, and they would be wrong in doing so, but that doesn't mean that anyone who uses the term is dismissing me.
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Call the word police someone used a term that I don't like! Arrest them, silence them etc... Come on!
Be sure that in your efforts for tolerance you don't become to intolerant that people can't use their freedom of speech by dictating what terms they can or can't use that are accurate discriptions.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(55 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 4:01 PM
|
> I think that a careful reading of the scriptures in
> the original languages, using both textual and
> cultural contexts, while ensuring that we aren't
> imposing on scripture our predetermined views would
> reveal that same sex marriage is out of God's
> intented or permissive will.
I understand your position Brian and I think it would be a terrible thing to ask someone to compromise their honest standards -- whatever they may be based on -- in favor of popularity.
However, one of our members recently posted a link when she started "The Bible, Christianity & Homosexuality" topic here: http://boards.hbo.com/topic/Big-Love-Member/Bible-Christianity-38/2000005863
The link that she posted to a Bible discussion of that subject is here: http://www.truthsetsfree.net/study.html
I thought the study was very enlightening. The people who did the study are pro-gay marriage Christians from what I understand -- but scripture is scripture and the original Greek & Hebrew are what they are.
I know you have your mission and you probly have a very busy life, but it took me a half hour to go thru their article and I found it very worthwhile.
I have been pro gay marriage for quite a while -- I voted against it when it came up on the Michigan ballot in 2004, but shortly after that time I began to realize that my heart and my interests lied on the other side of that fence -- just in the spirit of full disclosure -- I did a lot of scripture research about 20 years ago when I had my "polygamous revelation" but I'd never researched the scriptures on gay marriage this way -- I thought it was an excellent point they had made scripturally and I've never heard anything from the other side that made anywhere near as much sense.
Again, I know you're a busy man & probly have no interest in stepping into this minefield, but you seem like someone who refuses to back down from a challenge -- and I challenge you to read it for yourself and see if it changes your position at all.
--
"I believe the church and its leaders are in grave error on polygamy, and on the kinds of marriages and families it creates. I can't forsake my family." Sister Barbara Dutton Henrickson
--
Edited by JustHangin at 04/09/2009 1:04 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
636
Registered:
7/6/07
|
|
(54 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 3:41 PM
|
I was raised the hard core Fundamentalist Baptist.
Now? I'm a Christian. You could say I'm devout, for lack of a better word. I still identify myself as Baptist. I've never been to a SBC. I'm from up North and they don't have too many here.
I have posted before, that "fundamentalist" element is what interests me in Big Love.
Marion & Dean (oh, was that your name, sorry!) can you do an interstate loan? Or another NY county?
|
|
|
Posts:
10,818
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(53 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 3:34 PM
|
> I think that a careful reading of the scriptures in
> the original languages, using both textual and
> cultural contexts, while ensuring that we aren't
> imposing on scripture our predetermined views would
> reveal that same sex marriage is out of God's
> intented or permissive will. So before we get into a
> homosexual agenda driven discussion (which is where I
> have suspected you would be leading this discussion
> for some time now) I am not here to discuss same sex
> marriages and don't condone the lifestyle.
>
Brian, I don't know that anyone is "leading" this discussion in a particular direction, but the topic of same-sex marriage has been a hot one on these boards for some time - naturally enough, in terms of the "definition of family" that is the theme of the show.
I'm disappointed that you would use a term like "homosexual agenda driven," but since the topic of this thread has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, I hope we can leave that subject to other threads and keep this one for its intended purpose - which is certainly a broad enough subject.
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(52 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 3:02 PM
Rate this post:
|
> I believe in the whole idea of God's perfect vs.
> permissive will, but I think it's wrong to think that
> God's perfect will always leads to mongamous marriage
> between a man and a woman -- I think that God has a
> perfect plan for each individual and I think that
> people's sexuality varies greatly along with many
> other individual traits.
>
> I think that sometimes mainline Christianity gets too
> hung up on trying to get people to go right down a
> middle of the road path that just won't be right for
> everyone. I think they've alienated so many people
> out on the fringe that there are now more people on
> the outside than on the inside because they often
> aren't sensitive enough to realize that people have
> different needs and desires.
The laws of God aren't a popularity contest where we try to win people over by conceeding, modifying, or lowering standards so that people will feel better about themselves by joining our little club. Sin is sin and we should be able to call it sin without feeling guilty for doing so. We should also be able to extend grace to those who fall into sin and love them as Christ loved them, forgiving them and leading them into a right relationship with God to where God begins to change their hearts and minds to where living His standard is something that they long for.
> Yes indeed, but people are more complicated than
> simply allowing them heterosexual monogamous marriage
> or abstinence. And I think that a careful reading of
> the scriptures, mindful of the original language will
> show that Christianity, in general, has been a bit
> more limiting on the sexuality of individuals than
> the scriptures intended.
I think that a careful reading of the scriptures in the original languages, using both textual and cultural contexts, while ensuring that we aren't imposing on scripture our predetermined views would reveal that same sex marriage is out of God's intented or permissive will. So before we get into a homosexual agenda driven discussion (which is where I have suspected you would be leading this discussion for some time now) I am not here to discuss same sex marriages and don't condone the lifestyle.
Now let me say that I know several people who are homosexual and I love them dearly. I am able to see past that and see the person as God sees them and love them as God loves them. But we are called to self-control and restraint for a reason, and that reason is that without it we will eventually fall into sin. Let's not try to conform the image of Christ into something He isn't so that we can feel better about our sins, but rather conform ourselves to His image accepting His love, forgiveness, and grace while letting Him transform us by renewing our minds. Don't get things backwards here. We are to be transformed rather than transforming Him or the laws of God.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(51 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 12:59 PM
|
> JH...I agree with much of what you have said and it
> is This very passage in chapter 7 that I refer to
> when pointing out that Paul's exhortation to leaders
> being the husbands of one wife doesn't mean "at least
> one wife" as many polygamists claim.
Yes, a very common sense and scriptural approach, IMO.
I'm not sure where all this "3 wife rule to get into the Celestial Kingdom" stuff came from and you are probly more interested in going forth in the ministry that you have than opening up old wounds.
I don't think the FLDS or flds types can blame outsiders for starting those rumors and I don't think that this particular doctrine was ever articulated in Mormon scripture or even put down in print from the major players like JS or BY -- therefore we're left with what? Rumor? Minor "Prophets"?
Anyway, it seems to me that this pressure to get three wives to sign on with your program as a basic credential to be eligible for the Celestial Kingdom is responsible for a lot of the pathology that comes from their practice of polygamy, would you say that's an idea worth considering?
I believe in the whole idea of God's perfect vs. permissive will, but I think it's wrong to think that God's perfect will always leads to mongamous marriage between a man and a woman -- I think that God has a perfect plan for each individual and I think that people's sexuality varies greatly along with many other individual traits.
I think that sometimes mainline Christianity gets too hung up on trying to get people to go right down a middle of the road path that just won't be right for everyone. I think they've alienated so many people out on the fringe that there are now more people on the outside than on the inside because they often aren't sensitive enough to realize that people have different needs and desires.
> A single person
> is more suited for ministry and service to God, but
> not ALL are called to that level of service and not
> ALL have that level of self control and Paul gives
> allowance for those who don't by saying that it is
> better to marry than to burn with lust, and by
> allowing a married man to be a leader in the church.
> And I agree with Paul.
>
> I think that we all would be better off practicing
> self-control when it comes to sexual desire or any
> other desire of the flesh, but God also allows for an
> appropriate context for fulfilling our sexual desire
> and that is through marriage.
Yes indeed, but people are more complicated than simply allowing them heterosexual monogamous marriage or abstinence. And I think that a careful reading of the scriptures, mindful of the original language will show that Christianity, in general, has been a bit more limiting on the sexuality of individuals than the scriptures intended.
--
"I believe the church and its leaders are in grave error on polygamy, and on the kinds of marriages and families it creates. I can't forsake my family." Sister Barbara Dutton Henrickson
--
Edited by JustHangin at 04/09/2009 10:02 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
487
Registered:
3/12/09
|
|
(50 of 94)
Apr 9, 2009 12:41 PM
|
> marion wrote:
> Btw, I looked to see if your book is in the library
> (NYC), but it's not. I'm not buying any more books
> at the moment - no space and temporarily no income -
> but I'm interested to read it.
>
> Get out! NYC doesn't have it? Marion, can you do a
> loan from another county or state? I wonder if you
> can get it from my county?
I can't find it upstate either.
--
We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams. - W. Wonka
|
|
|
|
|
