|
|
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.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
|
|
(34 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 12:09 PM
Rate this post:
|
Have you read the Biblical book of Porn call the "Song of Solomon"? Sex is something that God created and He called it good when He created them male and female and there wasn't any sin yet in the world, and before there was sin in the world He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (another way of saying, "get your freak on and have some babies.") So sex wasn't sinful but good in the beginning before man fell into a sinful state.
Yes there are Hindus and Buddhists who believe all that about the flesh. The point I was making is that your general application to "ALL" religions is in error. Not all religions believe that or teach that. Pagans and ancient Greek Mythology have very sexual rights performed in them, including "temple prostitutes" to have sex with on an altar, so clearly your point is in error. Conceed the point and let's move on.
Polygamy isn't condemned in the Bible...but it isn't commanded either, and the Bible makes it clear that God's intended will for marriage is a monogamist relationship. There is a difference between God's intended will and His permissive will. Let's use divorce as an example. God never intended divorce to be a part of marriage, but because of the hardness of man's heart he allowed it...therefore divorce is part of God's permissive will, but not His intended will for marriage. The same is true of polygamy. Jesus said that in the beginning God created man and woman and the "two became one flesh", not the "three or four or half dozen or more became one flesh". God's intended will is monogamy and His permissive will allows for polygamist marriages as well.
Why would the Apostle Paul tell Timothy and Titus when selecting leaders in the church that they should be the husbands of only one wife? Because there were Jews who were polygamists (it was rare but permitted in their culture) who converted to Christianity. These men aren't condemned and run out of the church. Instead Paul disqualifies them for leadership because of their family obligations and restricts leadership to those who aren't obligated to a large family.
Many who read the Bible interpret it from their monogamist cultural bias wanting scripture to same something that agrees with their cultural norms rather than for what it really says.
Did you know that there is even provision in the Law for a man who has more than one wife on how he should divide his inheretence? Yet it isn't condemned at all in the law.
What about the law where if a man dies without leaving an heir to his widow she is to marry his brother who will produce an heir for her so that his name isn't cut off in Israel? What if her husbands brother is already married? The law doesn't give any guidance or restriction from the law because he is already married, and because polygamy isn't condemned, because it is permissible, because there is a provision in the law for a man who has more than one wife, we would have to assume that he would take his brother's wife as his own and produce for his dead brother an heir.
In order for polygamy to be condemned you would have to charge the practice as a sin and therefore what sin is it? It isn't adultery because he isn't having sex with another man's wife but with his own wife, it is covered under the sanctity of their marriage relationship. It isn't fornication because they are married...what sin is it?
When Nathan came to King David to confront him about his adultery with Uriah's wife and Uriah's murder, Nathan didn't condemn David for all the wives and concubines that David already had, but he condemned David for taking another man's wife to his bed! Hmmm...why wasn't David, a man after God's own heart condemned for all his other wives that he took before he got greedy and took Uriah's wife?
Just some food for thought.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
--
Edited by Illegitimate at 04/08/2009 9:19 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
10,816
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(33 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:54 AM
|
> BTW...I don't have a problem conversing with anyone
> regardless of their tone. They can attack me
> personally all that they want. I have been debating
> Mormon Theology on the internet long enough to have
> developed a thick skin and simply point out that
> personal attacks only show that their arguments are
> so weak that they have to resort to personal attacks
> to feel like they are winning rather than addressing
> the issue being discussed.
>
> Now if reminding someone of the unethical debate
> tactic of personal attacks is something that will get
> me ignored then I don't mind being ignored. I treat
> people how I want to be treated. I have no problems
> with a heated debate as long as it doesn't resort to
> personal attacks and remains on topic. I refuse to
> chase rabbits once I have someone backed into a
> theological corner. I am respectful regardless of
> other peoples behavior and hope that agressively
> pointing out a fallacy or error in logic isn't
> preceived as a personal attack or get me put on
> someone's ignore list. Even when pointing out errors
> of logic I won't tell you that your stupid or dumb or
> anything like that, I will simply point out why that
> line of thinking is in error. If that is to much for
> someone to handle then perhaps I should be on their
> ignore list.
>
Brian, I don't think that will ever get you put on anyone's ignore list! It's repeated personal attacks that have that effect.
I thought E-V's logic about male/female birthrates was interesting, btw, as was your rebuttal. It's an interesting thought that not all births might be recorded because they might reveal polygamy.
Something that has come up here before - are birth cetificates registered for all FLDS births? Your post suggests that they are not, and the news reports on the Texas ranch certainly seemed to indicate that.
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(32 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:45 AM
|
> JH...I disagree with you on your main point.
> Baptists don't believe that they can become Gods or
> r attain Godhood, and neither do any other Christians
> who hold to the Orthodox Teachings about God and
> Christ. There is a big difference between being like
> God and being a participant in His divine nature
> through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and
> actually becoming a God in your own right.
Certainly Mormons in their various forms are out on an island when it comes to taking the idea of "Eternal Progression" to extremes. And of course the Mormons who practice polygamy are very extreme on that doctrine and the way that sex plays into their whole spiritual cosmos. However, I do have it from a very reliable source that pleasure for women in sex is taken very seriously by many men who practice "The Principle". Those who are called to be polygamous husbands in that culture do learn some techniques about how to keep their wives sexually happy and I have heard some of these things discussed -- it's a topic that has always interested me over the course of my 52+ years and I learned something there -- nuff said?
Now, I have taken an interest lately in some Eastern religion and I can tell you that there are some Hindus in India who take denying the flesh to some extremely extreme extremes. I have heard of several married couples in that culture who have marriage relations only for procreation or often give up sexual relations for years in order to "conquer the desires of the flesh".
While I definitely see some benefit in this arrangement I'm not quite ready to go there whole hog myself -- it's an area that I have many ambivalent feelings about.
> Yes, all religions teach us to subdue our flesh in
> relation to sin, but sex in its intended context of
> marriage isn't sinful and isn't something to be
> subdued but rather enjoyed and celebrated by that
> married couple and only within that married couples
> marital relationship. Once you get outside of that
> marital relationship sexual desires become sinful and
> should be subdued.
That's a concept you hear a lot in evangelical circles -- I wonder where you find that idea explicitly spelled out in scripture -- and maybe you could also tell me where polygamy is condemned in the Bible.
--
"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
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(31 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:41 AM
|
BTW...I don't have a problem conversing with anyone regardless of their tone. They can attack me personally all that they want. I have been debating Mormon Theology on the internet long enough to have developed a thick skin and simply point out that personal attacks only show that their arguments are so weak that they have to resort to personal attacks to feel like they are winning rather than addressing the issue being discussed.
Now if reminding someone of the unethical debate tactic of personal attacks is something that will get me ignored then I don't mind being ignored. I treat people how I want to be treated. I have no problems with a heated debate as long as it doesn't resort to personal attacks and remains on topic. I refuse to chase rabbits once I have someone backed into a theological corner. I am respectful regardless of other peoples behavior and hope that agressively pointing out a fallacy or error in logic isn't preceived as a personal attack or get me put on someone's ignore list. Even when pointing out errors of logic I won't tell you that your stupid or dumb or anything like that, I will simply point out why that line of thinking is in error. If that is to much for someone to handle then perhaps I should be on their ignore list.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
--
Edited by Illegitimate at 04/08/2009 8:43 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(30 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:32 AM
|
JH...I disagree with you on your main point. Baptists don't believe that they can become Gods or attain Godhood, and neither do any other Christians who hold to the Orthodox Teachings about God and Christ. There is a big difference between being like God and being a participant in His divine nature through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and actually becoming a God in your own right.
Yes, all religions teach us to subdue our flesh in relation to sin, but sex in its intended context of marriage isn't sinful and isn't something to be subdued but rather enjoyed and celebrated by that married couple and only within that married couples marital relationship. Once you get outside of that marital relationship sexual desires become sinful and should be subdued.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(29 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:30 AM
Rate this post:
|
> > Ha! Now you understand about EV! Wait til you
> meet
> > his wife.
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO. . . .
>
> JH. . .Illegitamate. . .play nice with EV & T ok? I
> wouldn't want either of you to be banished to the
> outer darkness of Ignoreland because you know your
> own community, language, hertiage, etc, and live in
> the real world, ok????
Point well taken Miss Tsari -- but any club that would kick you out for recognizing reality is not a club I'm interested in belonging to.
Besides, there's nothing interesting to talk about here lately and my friends don't even return my PM's -- so, what was it about this club that was worth the price of admission?
--
"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
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(28 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:26 AM
Rate this post:
|
> 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.
I think this is generally true of any religion that takes its mission seriously -- whether it be FLDS, flds, LDS, most Eastern religions and even Baptists who I have spent an awful lot of time around -- I'm sure you have probly heard the old joke Brian -- why don't Baptists make love standing up? Because someone might think they're dancing.
Anyway -- the T who is EV's wife is Titannia not Tsariname. And the Marion who asked you the question about what was wrong with EV's analysis while quite obviously ignoring your simple answer to him is pretty typical of what you can expect from her too.
--
"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
|
|
|
Posts:
10,816
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(27 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:22 AM
|
Thanks for honest answers, Brian. It makes sense, too, that since sex is not talked about, nobody would really know if individual couples enjoy their sex life. However, if sexual fulfillment is considered something to be overcome, that's sad. Makes you wonder why God would create it in the first place.
Yes, T and E-V are married. Both T and I (and maybe others) have JH on Ignore because of his personal attacks in the past - the interesting things he often has to say are not worth the hassle.
E-V likes to argue, as you may have noticed!
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
|
Posts:
1,216
Registered:
8/10/07
|
|
(25 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:08 AM
Rate this post:
|
> > It amazes me that people like you who weren't
> ever in
> > the community are going to tell me what life was
> like
> > in the community I grew up in? What's wrong
> with
> > this picture?
>
> Ha! Now you understand about EV! Wait til you meet
> his wife.
>
ROTFLMAO. . . .
JH. . .Illegitamate. . .play nice with EV & T ok? I wouldn't want either of you to be banished to the outer darkness of Ignoreland because you know your own community, language, hertiage, etc, and live in the real world, ok????
--
Bitches are not born. . . they are made.
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(24 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 11:02 AM
|
I was refuting his argument that the math was wrong, that there had to be more females than males in the community because of how much faster female sperms swim. I was showing that regardless of this information it doesn't change the world's average birthrate of 49% male and 51% female, then I showed that the last census tells us that there is a higher than average male population in Colorado City which is the largest community for the FLDS.
One reason that I feel the male population is higher on the census is that I don't trust that the census is accurate because of men trying to hide their relationships with their plural wives, so I believe that the female population on the census is under reported. I don't believe it is enough to change the figures I gave by more than a percent point or two at the most.
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 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 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."
|
|
|
Posts:
10,816
Registered:
11/17/03
|
|
(23 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 10:32 AM
|
> It amazes me that people like you who weren't ever in
> the community are going to tell me what life was like
> in the community I grew up in? What's wrong with
> this picture?
>
Brian, I'm interested to know what you think was wrong in E-V's post about life in the community. As I think I mentioned, we have one other poster here who grew up in FLDS, but whenever we ask questions, he just yells at us for believing "lies." We never get any actual answers.
We only have the people who have left and written books to tell us what life is like there. And the hostility towards women that we've seen from the one or two FLDS males we've seen doesn't lead us to think women have much say in anything there. We would honestly like to know.
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.
--
"When you label something, you dismiss it."
...............Harry Dean Stanton
|
|
|
Posts:
2,714
Registered:
3/27/06
|
|
(22 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 9:16 AM
Rate this post:
|
> It amazes me that people like you who weren't ever in
> the community are going to tell me what life was like
> in the community I grew up in? What's wrong with
> this picture?
Ha! Now you understand about EV! Wait til you meet his wife.
--
"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 04/08/2009 6:17 AM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(21 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 2:41 AM
|
Here is some real data for you Eternal Void...
2000 Census
GENDER (CC = Colorado City, Az)
............................CC......AZ.......US
Stats.....Number..Pct......Pct......Pct
Male......1,689.....50.7....49.9....49.1
Female..1,645.....49.3....50.1....50.9
Well it seems that there are 1% more men than there are women in Colorado City. So much for your math.
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
--
Edited by Illegitimate at 04/07/2009 11:44 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
23
Registered:
4/3/09
|
|
(20 of 94)
Apr 8, 2009 2:33 AM
|
Hello...normal birthrates are 49% male and 51% female! We are talking a 1% difference in the math presented. Hardly enough to make much of an offset in the numbers. Sure some sperm swim faster than others, but that doesn't change the worlds birth rate.
Let's use my father's family as an example: He had 31 children, 14 male and 17 female...hmmm? That doesn't sound tooooo far off from 49% male and 51% female, and there are other families with more males than females in the community.
It amazes me that people like you who weren't ever in the community are going to tell me what life was like in the community I grew up in? What's wrong with this picture?
--
-Brian Mackert
Minister & Author of "Illegitimate - How a Loving God Rescued a Son of Polygamy."
--
Edited by Illegitimate at 04/08/2009 5:02 AM PDT
|
|
|
|
|
