Wednesday, August 10, 2005

given the choice

I would like to know, given the choice of being raised in a 2 parent household vs plural marriage, as adults, with open minds, which would you choose and why?


ATAR_i said...

My parents have been married for a long time and I was raised with them and my sisters. Relatives were always close by as my grandparents homesteaded a large area and gave all of their children land.

If I had to choose, I would choose that for myself.

I won't say that my parents minds were wide open - they are educated and intelligent, but passed along their own brand of fundamentalism that I do not regret having in my life.

It makes for a lot of incredibly humerous stories, as my education in many matters was postponed for better times (which never seemed to present themselves).

Anonymous said...

There are efficiencies of polygamy that do appear to have some charm and validity, but it seems to me that unless all parties were absolutely without faults, and unless the women did the choosing themselves, it is doomed.

Wishful thinkin' said...

I personally lived in plural marriage for 6 months, then I got married myself. It takes a little adjustment at first, but after that it gets better. I would choose to live it. I would only choose to live it with someone that would be my best friend too. I have seen it work and I like the idea. I think it broadens the horizens of the children and helps make them balanced too. It sure is a good help to a mother to be able to trade off and do things that she wouldn't ordinarily be able to do.

Anonymous said...

I'm male so I would love to have as many wives as could find good paying jobs.

What man wouldn't want a houseful of women who thinks he's king? Especially if they had good jobs!!

I would be their best friend too. And they could have a lot of freedom as long as it didn't interfere with their ability to make good money.

Anonymous said...

Money isn't everything.

I was raised in a large multiple family. I wouldn't trade. No way. Which mother could I live without? Which brother or sister? No way.

Anonymous said...

What man, would shirk his responsabilities as father and husband and base his "happiness" upon keeping pregnant women employed so that he may live at ease. You sluggard.

Faithful Woman said...

Without dreams we don't have a direction to focus our energies. Go ahead and dream your dreams, how else will they turn into reality.

There is a good side to having multiple mothers in a family. It takes a lot of work and effort, the same as any good marriage does. For me, two, three, four at the most, would be optimal.
Each wife should have her own domain where she can have her own uninerupted space when she wants it, but still be able to take part in family gatherings.
The whole idea of sister wives, to me, is to have close friends, not divided by different demands of each husband, but united by a common husband. That husband would have to be a very strong and gentle man. I sure wouldn't be subordinate to a man that I couldn't respect.

The biggest problems that I have seen in plural marrage is where the wives don't get along with each other for various reasons, this causes a cancer of problems throughout the whole family. If the wives don't get along, DON'T DO IT!
Religion gives an extra suport to plural marriage where women would make an extra effort to get along.
I no longer believe in placement marriage. It worked out great for me, but those who put me together with my husband were concerned about me and my needs too. In the current FLDS situation, marriages are being put together for purely political reasons and the women have to just grit their teeth and "keep sweet".
I think that people have to be compatible, the man and the women, and that each party involved has to be comfortable with the situation and make an informed decision when going into such a relationship.

It short, I think that plural marrage can work, but it has to be done cautiously. If the men and women get along well, the children will have a great growing up with a lot of advantages.

Anonymous said...

Faithful Woman:

Are there situations where the women have chosen each other and presented the situation to the husband?

Do these work better?

This is the year 2005 said...

How about plural husbands?

onthestreet said...

How about deformed brains. You are all developing deformities. That moment you reject anything that comes from God, the Devil takes over. There you sit.

You're talking polygamy, NOT FLDS. Anyone know the difference?

Here is light: Polygamy is poly-gamy (more than one in marriage). Thus, more than one husband OR wife, either way. SEE? FLDS are against polygamy.

The FLDS system of marriage stretches throughout the Celestial universe. Thus: Celestial Marriage. The world, under the kindly and kingly dictatorship of Lucifer, just confuses and perverts your minds about it. So, there you sit, and there you go.

Anonymous said...

Yes, dipstick. We are talking about polygamy.

May we?

Pretty please?

Anonymous said...

Deformities? Inbreeding causes deformities. I would look at yourself, Street. If you follow Warren, I guarantee you're an inbred yourself. Scary, but when you marry your cousin or your sister, that's inbreeding. Birth defects and deformities come from inbreeding.

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said...What man, would shirk his responsabilities as father and husband and base his "happiness" upon keeping pregnant women employed so that he may live at ease. You sluggard.
8/11/2005 9:07 AM

Nay Nonny,it is NOT "You sluggard."
It is: "Consider the Ant, thou sluggard. So the husbands, by commandment of God, pattern their lives after the way of an ant colony, and how is that? It is worker-ants and guards around the queen-ant, and wherever there is a queen in proper human kingdoms, there is a King over them all.

This gives you a little more accuracy as to the place of the Man in the family, at the head, delegating and overseeing the work and those who are faithful to the Prophet also work very hard. Just gaze over the new city they have built in under a year, if you care to open your eyes and look at the evidence.

So the Lord is saying to all the world, to YOU (non-FLDS): Consider the ant, their colony, or that people who are patterned in that way, a family with MANY (plural marriage), with workers and guards, and a King and Queen over them.

onthestreet said...

"Consider the ant, thou sluggard."
(Prov. 6:6)

onthestreet said...

Ahh, inbreeding is safe and most productive of health and vitality when God makes the love. The way of the gentile is certainly conducive to sickness and disease. The immaculate way of a saint keeps the channel pure and the cells and sinews healthy. And nations shall flock to it.

Land said...


You have so many issues.. Do you have a job, go to school?? Do anything productive besides try to oout wit other people. I am sad for you.

Amanda said...

Wow! Education is at an extreme low in Warren's followers. I've said this before, but street has just proven it even more by his inbreeding comment. SCARY! I would tell you to look up articles and read about inbreeding and all the deformities and birth defects it causes, but I know that you are probably not allowed to look at any book unless Warren has written it. But, it is a medical fact that inbreeding is not good. It causes mutations.

And your quotes are quite annoying, Street. They prove nothing only that you are brainwashed.

onthestreet said...

And if you are really "Land", your are just so much dirt.

onthestreet said...

... The inbred horse was a healthy individual- he probably had a few

Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related dogs, ... Selecting suitable outcrosses can reintroduce healthy genes, which might otherwise be lost, ...

onthestreet said...

... Those "tainted" genes may be bundled with whole lot of healthy genes;

Research Centres
... the genetic implications of human inbreeding, the prevalence of genetic markers in... The Centre aims to promote research and knowledge for health care ... - 37k - Aug 9, 2005

To produce cats which closely meet the breed standard, breeders commonly mate together animals which are related and which share desirable characteristics. Over time, sometimes only one or two generations, those characteristics will become homozygous (genetically uniform) and all offspring of the inbred animal will inherit the genes for those characteristics (breed true). Breeders can predict how the offspring will look.

"Line-breeding" is not a term used by geneticists, but comes from livestock husbandry. It indicates milder forms of inbreeding. Line-breeding is still a form of inbreeding i.e. breeding within a family line and includes cousin/cousin, aunt/nephew, niece/uncle and grandparent/grandchild.

The difference between line-breeding and inbreeding may be defined differently for different species of animals and even for different breeds within the same species. It is complicated by the fact that a cat's half-brother might also be her father!

onthestreet said...

Correction to 1st paragraph of the above post:

In human terms, inbreeding is considered incest; cats do not have incest taboos....
Those "tainted" genes may be bundled with whole lot of healthy genes;

Anonymous said...

Sraight Shot say,
Street, Street, Street, STREET!!!
Anyone who thinks for a second you are a poor uneducated soul who can't research is off their rocker.

I think you are a TEAM of somebodies. But sometimes you OUTWIT YOURSELF in an embarrasing manner. I'm suprised you didn't haul out the Queen bee and the lovely bee colonies and the respect and industry there???
But the Ant Colony thing will do - and added to the Bee colonies - what you have in God's pure unadulerated animal kingdom in both these situations where after the Queen has mated in the Bee kingdom she eats the drone - or he is attacked and killed. In Ant colonies several different things can happen - but mostly the male "breeder" is just plain gone.

Ton's of respect there -- So very like Warren. The only difference is the Bee thing -- his wives haven't cannabalized him yet.

Your, mostly accurate info on the interbreeding and breeding to bring out certain characteristics of animals is an experiment in Animal husbandry that is just WRONG brought over to humans.

There has to be a way to find out who you really are. More than half the time you would do a Jewish Rabbi proud with your carefully written definitions and reams of background outlined in detail and minutea that would be challenging for a micro-biologist.

Your amazing Huztpah that most people thinks is an indication that you are mentally ill because of the Bland and Flat statements about Warren Jeffs being , the Father of the righteous, the Alpha and Omega and all other completely incredulous statements you make about the guy is ---- I don't know------ like the red flag bull fighters use to get the bulls charging.
I don't believe that you believe this rot for even a milli-second.
You do have some twisted purpose and I think we'll figure it out about the same time you so-called buddy Warren goes to prison forever.

onthestreet said...

Yes, the YFZ eats up or expels the drones, and for good reason. So consider the bee or the ant. These people work and live like ants, and are just as sweet. As for the absence of the male breeder, same here. The men are often gone, and the wives LIVE on his every word if you want to call that cannabalism. They do not live by bread alone.

Anyone who isn't inside the prison house of the Lord is not a prisoner of Jesus Christ, as Paul described himself. You mis-define a prison. Why is it's spelling and pronunciation so much like "prism"?
Because in the right home environment, as calves in a stall or in the temple service or religious monastary ("prison" like), like in the Holy of Holies, the light so shines.

onthestreet said...

third line: "and are just as sweet (as bees)."

ATAR_i said...

Isn't the queen in charge - and has a whole munch of drones (men) working for HER.

OK - words looking or sounding a like does not mean they are a similar in meaning (I didn't think I'd ever have to explain that to an adult).

And your last paragraph is just plain weird. The holy of holies is no longer necessary - you can go straight to God - that's why the curtain ripped.

Comparing in with calves in a stall or religious services - and lights shining - totally random, freaky weird connection of ideas which makes no sense (but that's schizophrenia for you). Don't botther explaining - we won't understand your thought patterns (and are thrilled not to), but if you want, we might be able to pray and cast out the demon of mental illness and schizophrenia if you're willing.

onthestreet said...

Ahh, the parting of the curtain is just the parting of the veil, which Christ Himself does for you when you ascend to that level of doctrine and sacntification and grace.

No sense to you, for it must be internal: Thus, "In-sense". This Altar of Insense just before the veil is the stoic and the silencing of all the external senses (Alef). It is the ascention of prayer to the degree of acceptance. Then you have an "acceptable offering," which qualifies you for the Holy of Holies. How can that be transcient?Is that what you are? Are you THAT poor?

Faithful Woman said...

Street is very good at what he does.
He has gotten this blog and others shut down several times. His other speciality is to distract the line of the string.

mugwump said...

faithful woman:

Bingo! You just hit a home run. I hope all other contributers become as astute as you have demonstrated.

ATAR_i said...

OK guys - ignore OTS's hink pink streetology and let's get this thread back on track.

I would like to know, given the choice of being raised in a 2 parent household vs plural marriage, as adults, with open minds, which would you choose and why?

mugwump said...


Over the years I have had opportunity to observe stable families and those that haven't been able to provide stability.
By a wide majority I firmly believe that a father and a mother combine their talent and gender to provide a loving environment in which to rear children.

I have observed children coming from families where a new "daddy" shows up quite frequantly. This new "daddy" has no blood ties to the child and really only wants the mother for his own entertainment and/or livlihood.

I just today began reading "Predators, Prey, and other Kinfolk - Growing Up in Polygamy" by Dorothy Allred Solomon. Mrs. Solomon was born into a family of one father, a Naturopathic Physician, and seven wives, six who were "Celestial." The book tells of the effect of "The Principal" on the life of a little girl. I won't go into detail but I'm sure that all those desiring a better understanding of F.L.D.S. would benefit from reading this book. I vote one man, one woman, for life.

onthestreet said...

MUGGY, your vote for "one man, one woman for life" is the Parable of the Talent:

"Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
(Matthew 25: 14)

ATAR_i said...

Back on track....two parent household or many parent household - what do you prefer?

mugwump said...


You are stating that your most valuable friend and partner in life is nothing more than "trade goods." Adam and Eve were made as a pair. Adam, being alone in the garden was looked upon by God as needing a partner. God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep. God then took ONE of Adam's rib's and made Eve. When Adam accepted her, the two became one. If they were not to bring completeness and joy to each other why were the first children males? Instead of Cain & Abel why weren't they Suzie an Jane? God didn't command Adam to do anything but to be fruitful and multiply. Given that fact. Why would encumber myself with more wives than I can support. My wife is my life partner. Why would I want my children to be recepiants of welefare? If our joining resulted in their birth then I am responsible for their food, housing, clothing, training in the ways of the Lord, their education and finally, when they have chosen their own life partner, to get out of the way and bless their union.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't tell you how I'd prefer to be raised, but having BEEN in plural marriage and now in a monogamistic relationship, I can tell you that polygamy is the PITS! As a woman, you have no input or authority in adult matters. Your husband simply can't afford to acceed to so many different opinions, so he absolutely has to wing it alone.

The women are not treated with respect as other adults, but rather more like demi-adults, just above the children and more on the babysitter's level.

I can tell you now that my husband and I get along much better and have a great deal more affection for each other than when there were "other women" involved.

Merycia said...

Hi. I wasn't raised in a polygamous family, and I absolutely love my family so I wouldn't trade it for the world, but I do believe there are many benefits to living polygamously. As in everything, there are positives and negatives, and it is important that whichever arrangement people choose, they work diligently to enhance the relationships through love, charity and compassion. I think every marriage is tested and has the potential to become controlling and unhealthy, which is not good for children. Polygamy can work, and when it does, it can be awesome for kids. Would I rather have been raised in polygamy than in my own monogamous family? ONLY with my same parents! My parents have always promoted and supported critical thinking and free choice for us kids, and not one of us is in an abusive relationship or lacks in the knowledge that we are loved.

Lady Bountiful said...

Given the choice--which would I choose?
I had that choice. I made that choice, and I wouldn't change it. I did what I knew was right for me.
I am a plural wife.
No one on earth is perfect. It seems we have to learn through our mistakes, and of course I've made my share, but that wasn't one of them. My mistakes were the kind that most new, inexperienced wives and mothers make. I don't think I need to explain. However, even with all my learning experiences, we have the greatest, most wonderful children on earth. God has given us the best, as He always does.
I know many monogamist families who are happy with the life they have chosen, and I think that 'free choice' is one of he deciding factors. The other is the way we treat one another; showing respect, kindness,love and care. When those characteristics are present my way of life greatly exceeds any other. I wouldn't trade it with anyone.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:46

I am a polygamous wife also. When I married my husband he already had other wives so I know nothing about a monogamous relationship. I can say however that I wouldn't trade. My husband is the most caring and considerate man alive in my opinion. We, all of us, discuss family decisions as a family and make them together. My father had two wives for as long as I can remember, still has them both, and they love and respect each other. My mother had more than twice as many children and yet, you couldn't find one of us kids who would tell you that we didn't feel love from our other mother as though she were indeed our birth mother.

Anonymous said...

well said, lady bountiful! I agree!

Anonymous said...

I lived in a monogamous family until I was 13, when my father got another wife. As the oldest child, I was very close to my parents and saw the struggles and adjustments that had to be made.My mothers have become best friends and I can honestly say that my father's family has definitely benefitted from the union, which is why I chose to be a plural wife.Another mother brings her own talents, and enhances a family with her personality, though I will say it takes a special man to make a plural marriage work. The way a husband treats his wives has a direct impact on how they treat each other.
I'm a plural wife and I love my sister wives as though they were my own sisters, and I love their children as if they truly were my very own.

onthestreet said...


Anonymous said...

I was raised in a monogamist family until my dad received another "blessing", about the time I was in 5th or 6th grade.
My memories of my mother before the "blessing" are pretty good. My recolloections after the "blessing" are completely different. The two never got along, were always pissed off at each other, loved and dispised each others children at the same time, and made life hell for my dad.

Neither mother has a submissive personality, so it was like two tornadoes slamming into each other on a daily basis. They are sticking it out though; I think after 30 years you get accustomed to going 15 rounds every day.

If I had my choice I would grow up just like I did but without all the family tension. I would still make the same choice for myself, that is, to live manogamously. I think polygamy is sick and wrong.

Long Time Gone

Merycia said...

I wrote on my blog about the love of a sister wife. Though I specifically answered the question above as to whether or not I would have rather been raised in a monogamous or polygamous household, I didn't explain that I entered polygamy as a second wife. I adore my family, and have endeavored to have a good relationship with every one of our children. The children love each other and love their large family. I believe it is important for children to see love and warmth between their parents. If all they see if bickering and conflict, but no resolutions and no playful activities together, then why in the world would they want to emulate it?

GBNF said...

I think some of you are "keeping sweet" and not being honest about the plural lifestyle. I spent the early years of my life in Colorado City, with polygamy everywhere (including my own home). We took trips to the Salt Lake and Canadian colonies. I never saw a happy polygamist family. I knew I could never live that lie.

Everyone was smiling in church but there was always someone with hurt feelings, and someone trying to dominate others. In some families the husband kept the wives at each other to keep them from ganging up on him, or the husband would have his favorite wife that ruled the roost, and then there was the wives fighting for power and the husband left to play peacekeeper. I remember Truman Barlow in church telling the women if they had problems with other women to keep it to themselves and not burden their husband or the other women with it. How healthy is that?

Everyone wants to be "The One", even in a polygamist relationship. I think that women who choose this lifestyle have enormous egos. They think that they have something special that will make their man want them more than his other women.

It's the classic high school situation where everyone wants the quarterback. Not because they know him and like his personality, but because he has all these cheerleaders. If you are the one that gets picked...what an ego boost. Nobody believes they are going to be the cow in the pasture.

Reality is hard! Facing the truth about plural marriage is harder. When you've been told your whole life that it is a higher way to live, of course you are going to defend it and try to make yourselves believe that your happy. How can an ego that big admit that it might have been wrong? How can that ego admit that it is the cow? Not the head cheerleader?

For all of you plural women, I suggest you try monogamy. Try having a man that turns to you and only you! Competetion is over, you have matured past high school and are now living in adulthood. It takes a real woman to handle the responsibility of pleasing a man all by herself!

Merycia said...

gbnf, why are you so threatened by those of us who choose a different way from what you want? How does our choice in any way threaten yours? I HAVE lived monogamously. I lived three years polygamously, and 12 years monogamously. I have a very good marriage with my husband, and it has only gotten better with age and maturity. I don't believe in taunting women who have chosen either polygamy or monogamy, but your attitude begs the response: how many monogamous couples have truly been "monogamous"? Most couples have become sexually active long before marriage (with multiple partners), and continue unfaithfully in that pattern after marriage. I believe it takes a real woman to select a real man who is capable of being faithful to his commitments (covenants), regardless of whether those covenants are monogamous, or polygamous. A real woman is a woman who lives in her integrity herself, and who does not settle for anything less than a man who will honor and respect her. Such a woman CAN find such a man in polygamy. That's not to say there are crummy men attempting polygamy. The key is in practicing and upholding the standards yourself that you want in your mate. Living with honor is a rare thing indeed and there are few who can, and will, accomplish it.

GBNF said...

I am bitter. I was born into a choice someone else made. Children born into a polygamist family have no rights. You are raised in the midst of other peoples turbulence.

I think it is strange that you cannot trust your man to be true to you and only you. To assume that a man is not going to be faithful is defeating your marriage before it has begun. This "every man cheats" theory is straight out crap! There are lots of people that have relationships that go on for many, many years and never cheat on one another. You are accepting less than you deserve.

You have to be friends with your partner! You have to be able to share everything with them! You have to have true respect for them! You have to honor them! There is no honor in having sex with someone when you have made vows to someone else. Men in polygamy expect honor from their wives but will not give honor back to them.

Marriage is a two way street. If you add more streets, you get stop signs.

Anonymous said...

You mean like...

stop sniveling
stop complaining
stop criticizing.
stop whineing

That's a 4 way stop.

But you don't need any of those stops in monogamy.

GBNF said...

Each of those stop signs come with every wife. You have 3 wives you get 12.
Imagine what 75 wives brings....sounds like pure heaven to me. Really a god like household....

onthestreet said...

There you go, gbnf. You finally see the light, "pure heaven and a godlike household. . ." but not with the majority. "Few there be that find it," and "Celestial Marriage will DAMN more than it will save."

Now, whether you are the damned, or the few, that's entirely up to you, and your response to the bad conditions in some families. No, you don't have to love the bad. The Prophet in fact casts it out.

The FLDS were taught all our lives that "you don't have to follow a dud to hell." Brother Hammon taught that very often. We all remember it, if you were there. The duds are all who reject anything that comes from God, for then the devil takes power, and that is the dud leading to hell.

The Prophet Warren, like all prophets, are the most maligned of men, yet they have the greatest power in eternity, in God the Lord. They are the watchmen told of by Christ, who adjust the people or trim the vineyard.

I do hope you heal well, sister.

ATAR_i said...

Hmmm, well, I don't think warren wins the 'most maligned of all men' - so perhaps you might want to choose someone else who is more hated.

(most people have never even heard his name)

So lets list a few hated men whose names people would actually recognize. cuz if warren was something special (so good people hated him) - wouldn't they have to know he existed?

Osama Bin Laden
OJ Simpson
Brian David Mitchell

But look at the ones you missed having as your prophet (they would have really taken the prize for evil)

Adolph Hitler
Jeffrey Dahmer
Ted Bundy

Man - you're going to have to do better if you want piddly little jeffs to get the honor of most maligned man in America - much better. I don't think stealing from his congregation, local school, corrupting the police force, ruining a few hudred marriages, molesting family members, marrying little girls and having 75 wives will do

Merycia said...

gbnf, I did not say all men cheat, and I do not excuse men who do. I have embraced a lifestyle that I believe enhances upon monogamy. The fact that I do not desire another husband, but will open my marriage (and heart) to another wife does not invalidate your choice (or your feelings) in support of monogamy. I do believe marriage is MORE than a two-way street, and indeed, I wouldn't compare it to a street at all. It is a dynamic interaction of wits, wisdom, naivete, love, compassion, anger, hurt, commitment, determination, humor and joy, all coming together in one. In general, I would say that most relationships, monogamous or otherwise, suffer from false expectations and demands, and the partners never truly move beyond living in a co-dependent condition to one that encompasses living by design through self-awareness. That failure is a part of human nature and a part of living by experience (and sometimes repeated mistakes), until we get it right. I'm not willing to condemn one way of life or another as altogether wrong or evil. Both monogamy and polygamy have co-existed throughout history. The difference today may now be that women are asserting their identities and feminine stength and wisdom to choose for themselves where they want to be, and how they want to arrange their marriages, rather than having their marriages and futures planned for them by parents, relatives, churches, dignitaries, etc. You assert that children who are born into polygamy have no rights. That is absolutely false. It may be true of some families, as pretty much anything is true of someone somewhere, but it is not true of every family. Please be careful not to paint everyone with the same brush. It is not accurate or fair to apply your experience to everyone. That's pretty limiting to a world populated with so many diverse personalities and possibilities. Again, I assert, my parents gave us choices. Though I was not raised in polygamy, I was raised by parents who believed in polygamy. I was never taught that I should limit myself because I was born female. My mom and dad both encouraged me to be whatever I wanted to be, and to live the life I wanted to live. It was always an expectation that we would all go to college, the girls and the boys alike, and we all did. I know polygamous families who likewise do the same with their children, who embrace and love their children when they have chosen not to live polygamously. The concern for these families is that their children make healthy choices and live honorably in whatever path they walk. My question to gbnf is, can you offer the same for your children? Do your children have the freedom to truly choose for themselves the path they want to walk? What if that path included the practice of polygamy? It always amazes me when someone preaches against polygamy on the basis that there is no freedom of choice, but in reality that someone is equally restrictive of the choices of others in his or her own life. This is not an accusation, but just something to think about.

feralfem said...

merycia, you say, " The difference today may now be that women are asserting their identities and feminine stength and wisdom to choose for themselves where they want to be, and how they want to arrange their marriages, rather than having their marriages and futures planned for them by parents, relatives, churches, dignitaries, etc."

If this is the case, could you choose to have a second husband -- either you or your sister-wife? What are your thoughts on that?


Land said...

I would like to suggest to merycia very respectfully: I think when gbnf made the statement that "the children are born without a choice", (the way I interpreted it). Children are basically all born without a choice when it comes to the living situation. So when they are born into polygamy vs monogamy they naturally think that is the norm, therefore limiting their choices unless they go out and find out about other ways of life. I know from being raised in that situation that is is really frowned upon and mostly thought of as sinning to look into other ways of life. I think she has a valid point, as do you.

Anonymous said...

why is street even on the internet, I thought that wasn't allowed in the FLDS. It is clear to me that street is INSANE and needs to be medicated and banned from breeding.

ATAR_i said...


You are polygamous but not in the CC I'm guessing. Are you from Canada - or somewhere else?

I have met the Canadian FLDS, most of whom I find to be quite considerate, friendly, well rounded - much like yourself. Some of the women from CC have chosen to speak out - like Faithful, and they are much the same way.

What accounts for the drastic differences? Is it life experience, how you were raised, your husbands, your bishops - what do you think?

Or, are most women in polygamy much like yourself (with of course the normal array of personalities), just unwilling or unable to express themselves at this moment?

GBNF said...

Ever heard of Sarcasm? BTW are you ever going to tell us about Kathleen? Just open up and let it all out in the open, you will feel better.

Thank you! You have clarified what I meant very well! All but the respect for someone living a lie.

Can you honestly tell me that it does not bother you when your husband goes to another woman and then comes to you? Do you really want me to believe that you feel no jealousy?
I had a sister who was wife number 4, she told me one of the women would get a yeast infection and next thing they knew they all had it. How can you demean yourself like that? You speak of are fooling yourself! You are participating in a filthy lifestyle! If it is just adults involved, hey, have fun! Go have your kinky party! But if you have brought children into it you are guilty of putting them in an unhealthy situation.

As to giving choices to children, I betcha mine have more than yours!

Merycia said...

First, it's difficult to address the question about multiple husbands as it is not in accordance with my personal belief system. On the other hand, as far as whether or not that should be allowed in society, I don't think that government should be in the business of dictating to people who to love or how to go about it. I feel like laws that punish people for failure to conform to the monogamous ideal are unjust. I also wonder, if monogamy is so great, why do we need laws to compel people to conform to it? That's not an attack on monogamy, because I know that it can be great, I just don't think that everyone should be forced into the same mold. What works for one does not necessarily work for everyone.

If I wanted a second husband, I would move in a direction to find a support system and circle of friends that would support me in it. Frankly, I do have feminist friends who would cheer me on, but I have zero desire for that. :o)

Land, I understand your point, and am willing to stand corrected if that is what gbnf meant, although I would suggest that every child is limited by the experiences and beliefs of their respective parents, regardless of their lifestyle or religion. Every religion has its traditions and values, and they are generally passed down from parent to child with a strong desire that the child will adopt the belief system. Look at Mormonism. LDS children are strongly encouraged to go on missions and to marry in the temple (and are told that if they do NOT marry in the temple, they WON'T be sealed for eternity to their family). Non-LDS family members, or inactive LDS family members are not eligible to enter the temple and witness the marriage, even if they are the parents of the bride or groom. If you leave the church, you risk losing your salvation and your society of friends, and may even lose your spouse.

I prefer not to view in negative terms that all children are limited by the circumstances of their birth. The reality is, parents cannot give their what they themselves don't have. They can only share what they do have. Every human being is be born into circumstances that are both limiting and rewarding (some more painful or challenging than others), and it is ultimately up to each one of us to give to ourselves what we still need to chart the course we want for ourselves.

Atar_i, I am not from Canada, but I know several of the ladies there, and think they're wonderful. I'm from Salt Lake, and I'm not involved in any of the groups. I have many friends practicing polygamy who feel the way I do, both in and out of the various groups. I don't know that most ladies in polygamy are like me, but there are many. What accounts for the differences? Some people live by design, some people live by accident. Some people are in charge of their destiny, some people spend all their lives following another's vision of their destiny. I think a variety of circumstances account for the differences, including the different personalities, expectations, genders, education, experience, etc.

I had the opportunity as a child to live in other states and it was a great experience. I was also born on the east coast when most of my siblings were born in Utah (and a few in California). Some people live in one town or city their entire lives. A friend of mine who lives in Paris had the opportunity to travel throughout Europe by the time he was 13. He speaks several languages and has a very different world view from what I had when I was 13, having only been to California, Alaska and Tijuana. I was in awe when I heard of his experiences, and would love for my kids to be able to travel to different countries and experience other cultures, especially by immersion. Actually living in another country is so much better than simply reading about it in a book. I'm still hoping!

Merycia said...

gbnf, you have a lot of judgment and you don't even know me. I have no judgment on you. At no time have I ever said I feel no jealousy, neither do I expect you to "believe" anything you don't want to believe. Believe what you will. I just thought to point out some things to you that you might not have thought about, to give you another perspective aside from your own. Clearly you're not interested, and that's okay, too, but don't try to draw me in to "my dad is stronger than your dad" contests because I don't really care about any of that. If you've truly found happiness in your choices, more power to you, but your anger and criticism belies something else. As far as whether or not my children have fewer choices than yours, who can measure that?

I wish you the best.

ATAR_i said...


I had heard that living a polygamous lifestyle in Salt Lake City was extremely hard because you are not in your own little area.

Someone else was mentioning how the discipline for the children was incredibly harsh - because of their location and keeping the lifestyle secret while living around people who do not practice it.

Can you tell me about how it is to live this lifestyle *not* surrounded by others who do the same.

How do you camoflage your lifestlye? Do you? How do your children handle it at school?

I'm very curious. Are there many of you - do you live close? Is the discipline very strict for the reasons mentioned above?

Thanks for answering my other questions - but - as usual I'm even more curious.

feralfem said...

"Can you honestly tell me that it does not bother you when your husband goes to another woman and then comes to you? Do you really want me to believe that you feel no jealousy? "

Speaking for myself, I can honestly say I had no jealousy about that. What bothered me the most was not having enough time with him when I really needed it - that is when I had other issues of a practical nature or issues about my children and either their behavior or the way they were being treated by other children and other mothers in the family. I don't think one could call that "jealousy." Those were times of sadness and/or anger. I believe I was simply born without the jealousy gene, so to speak.

My many years of polygamous life was lived in SLC before I ran.


GBNF said...

Did you think that perhaps you were not born with the "definition of jealousy" gene?
Just kidding, I am glad you sought a better lifestyle! Are you happier?

ogre said...

growing up in a plural family, I was definitly sheltered,and the moms couldn't stand each other, and dad had his favorite wife (not my mom)
One thing that my dad drilled intop our heads was having a mind of your own.
believe it or not, I survived and am doing fine, though many in my family aren't.
Polygamy of itself isn't the problem, In my line of work I see a lot of seriously screwed up monogamous familys..I would rather place the blame on people who haven't been taught proper parenting skills.
If grown adults believe in living in the polygamous relationship, then fine, but if you are nonverbally forcing (peer pressure or prophet pressure)young people into it, than it can't be justified.

Merycia said...

atar_i, most of the polygamous families that I associate with do not live in the same home with their sisterwives and children, though the children are welcome to come and go as they please. To that extent, it is not as obvious. I do not know that any of them discipline harshly at all, let alone to conceal their beliefs, so the things that you ask about are not my experience either personally or among my friends.

I do know of a family in the valley that does all live together. Their home is somewhat set apart from surrounding homes, and they are pretty strict in their discipline. I don't think it is due to a need to hide their way of life (with several wives in one home, I doubt they'd fool anyone anyway). I think it is more of a parenting style for them that is simply more rigid. A lot of their children have departed from their way of life, and this could be one reason why.

I don't live with a sisterwife, but we're pretty open about our beliefs. Being open does not mean that we talk about them all the time. Initially, when we were first getting to know our neighbors, it came up and we talked about it; now we don't even think about it. It's like, oh that friend is Catholic, and this friend is LDS, and this friend is polygamist. When we head out to a movie, or get together for a pool party, or throw a birthday party for one of our kids, what difference does it make what we each believe about God and the eternities?

Merycia said...

I should clarify that I actually know a few families where the wives live together, but just one of them where the parents are pretty strict in their rules and discipline. The others are more mellow.

Land said...

I would venture to guess after reading everything you have written here that you live a MUCH different, more main stream america life style than those do in the CC/Hildale/Centennial Park area. I am interested in your point of view, and happy to hear it. Thank you for sharing it.

This fact is probably why you are getting a little aggression from others. Like you are lying or something. I know that I thought all groups of the religion were living the same way I was raised. Good to know that is not true. Those of us that have a bad taste in our mouths about it might have made different decisions given better circumstances.

Thank you again for sharing your views.

feralfem said...

On 8/15/2005 10:52 PM GBNF said:
I am glad you sought a better lifestyle! Are you happier?

Delightfully! Making my way one day at a time toward insouciance!

Thanks for asking.

lady bountiful said...

Free choice is very important. We have to decide what we know is best for ourselves, after considering the options. How could anyone else tell me what's best for me? They might give important views and suggestions, but that final decision is mine alone. That's the way it is in all aspects of life. That's why we each have a unique personality. Most of my brothers and sisters live differently than I do--even different religions. We still respect and love one another. God, Himself intended that we have our free agency; to choose for ourselves. How else could we possibly be happy or free?
Of course we will have to account for those decisions, but isn't that reason enough for making those personal choices?

Anonymous said...

yep, God made us free moral agents. If I make an error I pay the price. Same way for anybody else.

But even yet as sinners, Christ died for us.

Merycia said...

Eloquently put, Lady Bountiful. That is exactly how I feel.

Anonymous said, "God made us free moral agents. If I make an error I pay the price. Same way for anybody else. But even yet as sinners, Christ died for us."

I would add that it is free agency, and the freedom to actually make mistakes and learn from them, that creates the need for the atonement in the first place. If we didn't have the freedom to sin (even accidentally), we would not need to repent, or have the opportunity.

Anonymous said...

No way.

You can't "accidentally" sin.

It doesn't work that way.

onthestreet said...

Yes, you all have accidents. In a society that can't control itself, birth control is a sort of band-aid to the problem. Failing that, you often just SLAY your children, and all who give their voice in the right of women to choose the MURDER of innocent children share that ETERNAL GUILD.

I guess you could call that an "accidental" sin, and many of you call it an "incidental sin." Regardless, you reep ETERNAL GUILT! That is THE ULTIMATE abuse of women and children and government authority.

furnace said...

Street, someone mentions accident, and you immediately talk about accident in a light that they didn't mean.

This reminds me of Samuel Johnson when he published a dictionary in England. A lady (ladies?) came to him and complimented him about the lack of gross words in his dictionary. He simply replied, "ah-ha, you have been looking for them".

the_lerker said...

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

ots, keep in mind when you point one finger, you've got three pointing right back.

mugwump said...

Pardon me street, did your parents have any children that lived?

Anonymous said...

I stand by what I said.

You can't "accidentally" sin.

That's going to be important soon. When the "Mark of the Beast" time comes, a lot of people are worried that they may take the Mark innocently and be condemned.

That ain't gonna happen.

mugwump said...

steer away from '666' The things that frightens me is that our 'cashless' society is moving rapidly toward personal identification, (will be sold as the only way to protect personal identity) A computer chip, which can be installed in the forehead or on the back of the hand easily.

This proceedure is currently being used with livestock. Humans will be next.

onthestreet said...


Finally, you all seem to SEE what you have been doing. We have all sinned, and if I point a finger it is only to refute all the finger-pointing and tongue-wagging you are doing, many of it outright lies. Then you may see where the Truth lies, and not by my own word, but by the Word of God. Sin is no accident, for when we become adults we are accountable.

Now, this doesn't say that accidents don't happen, for they do. But whenever we fall to sin, or go against the Word of God to let the children come, etc. our emotions or weaknesses or the influence of others will not excuse us. Do you agree?

Now, MUGGY, "Any living children from your mother?" Are you saying you are dead to the truth? The truth is, I live. Your question might sound humorous to a juvenile, but it also begs the question of your knowledge of truth, or your willingness to accept it.

onthestreet said...

I can see you don't know what 666 means. You've already partaken.

mugwump said...

It is obvious that there is going to be disagreement between the two of us. You quote from scriptures, or at least from observations made by Joseph Smith. You counnt these incohereant ramblings as being equal or superior to God's Word, the Bible.

I don't agree with you. I will never embrace the techings of that stargazing, psalm reading, seer who's life, prior to his having established a maverick religion is reflective of his obvious intent in publishing the mook of mormon, He developed the rediculous theory that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is incomplete and must be amended by a self proclaimed authority. Repeatedly, D&C 132 has caused grave problems with those who want to live the principle. There have been infightings, struggle for control, splits etc. the end product is that there are women, living in isolated places, without benefit of the protection that a husband is to provide his wife. His wives and chlidren live in squalor while he lives in splendor.

Smith endows the man, head of the household unlimited power in controling every aspect of the family life except providing for their comon good. If the woman is in poor health, or if the chidren become sick and die, he never pauses in his effort to make sure that all his wives are pregnant all the time. The man, the priest of the household, may go months without seeing a particular wife and her children. He pops in long enough to take her to bed, pick up any cash money she may have accumulated and hits the road again. And is natural, he has favorites who get the best while those of less importance go without the basic needs of life. Adequate medical care, noursing food, eduction beyond that ability to read signs and perhaps simple directions placed upon products used in the home.

Children grow into youths, the boys are sent to work camps for two years, the girls have a husband selected for them at the first sign of their maturing int adults, age and experience are no factors. They become plural wives and the cycle begins again.

They are taught to lie to anyone outside their immediate household but, being truthful is a requirement for each child and wife. This is a double standard that is practiced throughout their lives.

They grow into adults, frightened of their church and it's power over their very lives..... so indoctrinated that when the Prophet, elder, etc. speaks they jump to do his will, knowing (as a result of their teaching) that He has the power to punish and to ban them from their family.

If one of the wives is smart enough to fugure what is happening to them and want to leave, if they accomplish the fact they are dragged back, punished and reduced to the least of the wives, meaning that no matter their God given gifts, they will scrub the toilets, do the laundry, the most menial of tasks will become theirs. The have been placed upon a treadmill where the tempo has been set, expected to control thier children while meeting all the demands of their priest father. they are to feed, clothe, heal and train the children to work. The little girls are taught that they have no value except to bear children. Their absolute obedience to every whim of thier priest father must be obeyed without question if they hope to have any place in heaven. They know nothing of the God of Love. Their instructs them obedience, the wives, who have not brought an important connection via their family, are shuttled out of sight, given a huge work load, kept pregnant without affection. There is no real love in a polygamous marriage, it is a sham and the wives and children to the priest father grow up wondering if they will ever receive love from their father or from their church.

Faithful Woman said...


You paint quite a dismal picture. I wonder where these people that you speak of live. There aren't any among the many polygamous people that I know.

warren may be funeling his followers in that direction, but up untill that, no such thing have I witnessed in my 33 years of living in an almost entirely polygamous community of around 10,000 people.

Remember that your brand of force is no more attractive than warren's.

mugwump said...

Thank you faithful woman. I appreciate your candor even though I do not agree with you life style or especially your theology.

My information comes from the Kingston group, the LaBarron Group, the group formerly headed by Rulon Allred. I just completed a book that was written by the sixth wife in a seven wife family.

Even the works of Ben Bistline and John Krakauer do not spell out a very happy existance for plural wives or female children born to a polygamist family.

I have read the accounts of some you you having lost your homes because of the whim, and will of Warren Jeffs. I read about the Colorado City School District being found at risk in the Familial handlking of School Funds. what about the mess with the UEP. If you live in the Arizona strip you can't help but know better than I, what has happened to yor welfare and sense of security. Like Will Rogers used to say, "I only know what I read in the papers."

Anonymous said...

....and you don't even get that right.

Lady Bountiful said...

"It is well, when judging a friend, to remember that he is judging you with the same God-like and superior impartiality."--Arnold Bennett

--Just something to think about.

Mugwump, there are many of us who are so far from your dreadful description you wouldn't recognize us. You can find ugliness all around you--it's there, but it's not everywhere. If you look beyound the clouds you might even see the rainbow. It's beautiful!
No matter what religion you focus on you can find substandard people. Does that mean everyone of that religion is that way? I sometimes attend meetings where children from monogamist homes need help. They have been abused through the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Does that mean all monogamists are treated that way?

One of the most Christ-like people to live wasn't even christian. You might know him. His name was Ghandi. He was a man who lived a very difficult life, and had a terribly inferiority complex. He also had an uncontrollable temper, and many other problems. Look what he did with his life. He totally remade himself. Before he left this world 500,000,000 people were influenced by his great example. They admired and followed him. They renamed him "Mahatma" meaning "the great soul".
It's possible for each person to achieve the goals of our dreams just as he did. And it's alright to choose to live the way we know is right for us. I'm not hurting anyone. Please don't to try to hurt me.
Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Mugwump, what you need is for the press to come and do an indepth report on your life for the benefit of the rest of the world. So we can all "experience" you in your greatness, and you can get a first hand experience on how what you read in the newspapers really works.

onthestreet said...

Hey, maybe Muggy's just learning.

Maybe Muggy hasn't found out yet, that the FLDS isn't vain enough to write histories and news reports of itself, thus ALL that's been written is most twisted and skewed by nothing but outsiders, in fulfillment of the scripture:

THE WORLD WORSHIPS THE DRAGON AND THE BEAST, WHO IS THOUGHT INVINCIBLE: Revelation 13:4 - The whole earth followed the animal (the Beast from the Sea).
"And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority." (Revelation 13:2)

"And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." (Revelation 12:9)

Maybe Muggy is just describing personal experience after all, and nothing about the FLDS, not knowing anything about it, and confessing only what was read.

That, we can understand. Maybe we can give you some leeway for that, and forgive you for your criminal libel against thousands of innocent people.

mugwump said...

Maybe you don't write officially sanctioned reports about yourself but, those who have left your fellowship have, often under threat of physical harm, shared their story of misery and shame.

I would not be so harsh as to think that the declarations of the few represent the whole. But, I would like to say that in all probability there are many more who would willingly leave, if they did not fear the consequences. Not knowing the other options and believing the life-long harrange of parents, priests, bishops, ward leaders etc. (I don't know your heiarchy, nor do I care to know.) The whole thing seems to hae something to do with placement for "time and eternity." I don't find that phrase in my Bible.

onthestreet said...

Ahh, their OWN misery, and their OWN shame, see?

Gen. 24:1 Abraham was old, and well stricken in age. Yahweh had blessed Abraham in all things.

2 Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all that he had, "Please put your hand under my thigh.

3 I will make you swear by Yahweh, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife for my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I live.

4 But you shall go to my country, and to my relatives, and take a wife for my son Isaac."

There's one of many examples of PLACEMENT MARRIAGE. Do you want more? Found right in YOUR VERY OWN BIBLE. Do you love it, or hate it?

ATAR_i said...

And here's an example of her FREE CHOICE TO BE PLACED

Genesis 24 VERSE 5 (I noticed you left it out)

5 the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?

You can have an arranged marriage as long as the female has the ability to say yes or no - and she is not punished or threatened or cajoled into it.

mugwump said...

In all your references I still did not see the words "for time and eternity." Time and eterneth are in God's hands, not ours, and when we pretend to be a god, we are assuming a role that never was ours to begin with.

God is God, man is man. God created man, not the other way. When man attempts to create god, he is simply assuming God's role which is to be God.

Satan's sin was that he wanted to be God. Is your assumption any different?

Lady Bountiful said...

It's as possible for a man to become a God as it is for a preschooler to eventually graduate from university. It is something he can achieve if his desire is great enough; if he is willing to perfect himself.

"As man is God once was
As God is man may become."

Lady Bountiful said...

Satan's sin was that he wanted to take man's free agency away from him the same as many people are doing here on the earth today, which would be your concern on your 08/19/05 post. We are not all part of that way though and don't appreciate being included with them. We are also hurt by that, especially when part of our family is involved there.

mugwump said...

Im sorry faithful, but you are not quoting from the Bible. You are victimized by a hope that is not sustainable. God loves you as a child and He will care for you as a child, He will reward you as a child and He will redeem you, provided that you look to His plan of salvation, not one hatched by a mere man.

onthestreet said...

Are you not "mere man"?
Are not all "mere men?
So where is the plan?

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in him whom they have not heard? How will they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10:14)

How can they be administered to without a lawful minister? The president may delegate the act of baptism to another lawful minister.

mugwump said...


Your last statement is the biggest and most damnible lie you have put into print, thusfar.

Your plan allows an individual who is financially able to BUY influence to be placed in a more advantageous position in order to gain promotion. Of course if your bloodline is of the aristocracy that helps gain promotion too.

Don't tell me that you won't receive favors from your heiarchy if you grease their palm.

In your plan each level of promotion is gauged by your accomplishments and gifts in your previous level. These are called good works.

In failing to meet the good works required to gain a promotion you can simply bribe your confessor, or what ever you call him.

Your largess has assisted your superior in reaching or exceeding his goal,and thus improve your chances of promotion. Because if you can fleece a little extra from the sheeple you proove your value to your superior and thus gain his attention and promotion.

Enough of those earns you a temple recommend.

Where does it say in the Bible that anyone bought their salvation.

Being good, minding your mommy, tithing, assisting the poor, homeless, destitute etc. are only an outpouring of God's Grace through you.

That's how you are supposed to behave. We don't always, but it was Christ's example.

If you have Christ's love in you His love is reflected in your attitude toward others.

Christ is not impressed with your sacrifices. Why should He be? Can you compare your good works to Christ's dying as the penalty price for your sin?

If you could impress Him, you could boast your way into heaven.

I can hear a new song "I Bragged my Way Past old Peter" at the pearly gates.

It ain't gonna' happen.

onthestreet said...

You say: "Don't tell me that you won't receive favors from your heiarchy if you grease their palm".

Don't you grease God's palms when you are OBEDIENT and do what he says? Then, you receive favors.

onthestreet said...

You ask: "Where does it say in the Bible that anyone bought their salvation".

Let's try Jesus Christ, a very good place to start:

"For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body...So when Jesus says, "Do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you...

"You were bought with a price" - 1 Corinthians 7:23 ... Jesus paid the price, picked up the cage, and opened the door... If you had a friend who needed money ...

Called to Total Commitment: Jesus
said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart...For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your ...

Lady Bountiful said...

Just wondering--

How do you think God got to be a God?
Do you think He was always there?
How does a father become a father?
Do you think he was always there?

I don't mean to be pushy; nor am I trying to offend anyone. I'm just curious.

Lady Bountiful said...

"To aim at a star and miss it is better than to aim at nothing and hit it."

ATAR_i said...

Lady Bountiful to answer your question I can only use what I know. In the Bible it states that God is without beginning or end, eternal, infinite, that he has always existed "even from everalsting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2), and "your throne is established from old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2).

Simply put that means that God has no beginning and no end - He always was - He did not become.

Time is a property, that results from the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time is like a fourth dimension. But God is not matter, in fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to him.

Man cannot become that, neither you or I can become that.

However, there is something else intriquing in your question which I want to address. It's the desire to become God.

Biblically - this is how our attitude should be. (Phillipians 2:5-11)

5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: 6. Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, 7. but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross. 9. Therfore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10. that at the name of Jesus every knee whould bow, in heaven and on the earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now, I see that we are to be 'men of God' but not God. That is not something that we should desire to attain.

Jesus, who was by his very nature God, did not even find equality with God something to be grasped.

Does that answer your question?

What leads you to believe that you are to become a god?

onthestreet said...

Godhood is an office, which has no beginning and no end. God is a spirit, and LIKE OUR OWN it is eternal element.

Atar says that God is not matter. God matters, and HE IS MATTER, spirit matter, and physical, and all in all. God is all things in one.

Atar says He did not become.
"As man is, GOD ONCE WAS, and as God is man may become. This from Joseph, the Mormon Prophet, and confirmed by Christ. "Be ye perfect, EVEN AS YOUR FATHER in heaven is perfect.

No child became his own Daddy, or superceded God, but children become gods, "EVEN AS YOUR FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN." Satan sought to be equal to him. Saints seek to be like him, and push him ever higher. This is eternal increase, and exaltation to exaltation.

The light of God, the Word of God, and the aspirations of our very Father in Heaven, leads us on to become gods.

Do you see the contrast between the light of God, and the darkness of Satan, in these two posts?

mugwump said...

Your Satan is the brother of Your Jesus.

In truth, Jesus pre-existed Satan and was involved in Satan's creation. Jesus is God and God is Jesus

If YOU REALLY knew the BIBLE, this would cease to be a mystery.

Lady Bountiful said...

"The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scriptures comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel.
The book was writen by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation............
The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after His resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come."

Much of my information comes from this book as well as others which were also divine revelations and inspired declarations for the benefit of all mankind.

ATAR_i said...

Lady Bountiful, by your comments I see that we both believe in the Bible. Do you believe it is the inspired word of God?

We won't be able to agree on the BOM - but that's a given since I'm not mormon. So in the BOM what is the reference for you comments about becoming God? I have the BOM at home for reference - I would like to see that reference if you have it.

OTS - matter is something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas or plasma. Many people have tried to make God into matter - idols, buhdas, gold calves etc...

It's interesting that you take the stand that God is matter - because it is in sync with the atheist viewpoint that matter or energy always existed and THAT is what created the universe NOT God - it's part of the Humanist Manifesto (matter is self-existing and not created).

You'll have to provide references for anything you want to quote as scripture - or I won't bother to respond to it - because, for all I know - you just made up your scriptures.

You'll have to do better with your arguments too - real theology, no streetology, permutations, hink pinks, astrology or schitzophrenic babbling.

onthestreet said...

A Bit MUGGY: You said: "In truth, Jesus pre-existed Satan and was involved in Satan's creation. Jesus is God and God is Jesus. If YOU REALLY knew the BIBLE, this would cease to be a mystery."
8/20/2005 8:09 PM

STREET's Reply: Jesus proclaimed himself THE SON OF GOD, and he prayed unto GOD, the Father. So, who again is God? Oh, if you knew!

onthestreet said...

Atar Said (8/20/2005 11:35 PM): "OTS - matter is something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas or plasma. Many people have tried to make God into matter - idols, buhdas, gold calves etc..."

STREET'S Reply: Ahh, what you describe is only what you were taught by unlearned men. You only describe solid matter, and liquid, and gaseous. That's three, four to go. There are SEVEN days of creation. Ask the churches and the great scientists of Galileo if the earth is round. Galileo was nothing but a liar and a heritic to them, until...

SEFER MORMON: Let me know if this satisfies the question: Divine Truths from the Book of Mormon
(Alma 11:26-29, p.235236) The Book of Mormon also teaches that God is eternal... the dead may become Mormons and heirs of salvation), Man may become gods, ... rlister/mormons/mtruth.htm

Matter is eternal. All scientists KNOW that you cannot destroy matter (hey, there are new GED classes in SGU. Not sure that's where you're at, but if that helps). And matter being eternal, the eternal Father is able to create or organize with it, for He only creates things eternal. Men and demons create the rest of it, and deny the scripture, being athiest. Matter is self-existing, but ORGANIZED. To create is to organize matter. Thus God organized the matter of the earth into it various parts. Get it?

Oh, you need references. Here you go. First, the web is very busy tonight, being a weekend, so my browser won't pull up the links, but see if this helps:

DID GOD CREATE THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH OUT OF NOTHING: The Bible teaches in Genesis 1:1 (with Hebrew 11:3) that God created ... in their doctrine of creation, recognize no eternal matter before creation. ...

Now again, "no eternal matter before creation" is talking the scientific definition of matter, but there are seven planes of matter, not three. But more directly to the scripture (Gen.1:1-Ahh, a very good place to start):

" ...The earth was without form." There it is, Tar. It doesn't say there was no matter. It says that God hadn't formed it yet. See, it is like a bucket of Tar or a wad of clay. Just because it's not formed into something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

As for "streetology, permutation, etc., that too is REAL THEOLOGY, but perhaps too much for you, in which case I yield. I hope this post helps some.

Lady Bountiful said...

I do believe the Bible to be the word of God. I also believe the same of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
#8 of the Articles of Faith, a guidline of our beliefs, says "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
My Book of Mormon is a triple combination; all the above mentioned books are combined in one.
In section 132 of the D&C V-20 says
"Then shall they be gods because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be god because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

Sec. 132-V 37
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were obedient to God's commandments and because they did "which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods." said...

I greww in a poly family and I have to wonerful wives in our family. We dont talk about polygamy we just live it. The key is in having prov31 wives and god husbands that know and have been taught how to be gentle and consistant in their leadership. My wives say it is a good life because we all remember our places and do our jobs accordingly. I think it has to do more with Love. Godly and Family centerd. said...

I just reread my statement and realized the errors...I meant to say good husbands...NOT god. And that I grew up in a Poly family...Not greww...Sorry I have never been on a computer "blog" before...I will learn though...once again I am sorry.

mugwump said...


John 1:1-14 In the beginning was the WORD and the WORD was with God and the WORD was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There was man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave them power to become sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of God. And the WORD became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.) full of grace and truth.

ots: It took me many years and the teaching of a devout father for me to even begin to understand this passage. Understanding did not come as a flash in the pan, but as the result of prayer, soul searching and intense study. I honestly believe that this one short passage dispells the rumor that Jesus was anything except what he claimed to be, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father. He pre-dated creation and was the means by which the world was created.

I could go to my Bible dictionary and give you a pretty full listing of the names of God. I can, with all assurance tell you this: none of his names was Adam, and Satan was a fallen angel and not one of God's sons or Jesus' brother. That precept is the one fact that you have to understand before you can begin to understand this Holy Writ. I haven't seen the ability to be discerning in any of your posts to date.

The preceding scripture was copied, in full, from the King James Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised. The text conformable to that of the edition of 1611, commonly known as the authorized of King James version.

The translation came not from the Latin Vulgate or any other pre-existing translation, but from the original of the Hebrew, Aramic, and Greek languages in which this Bible was written.

Errors are of the translators, not of the WORD.

Joe Smith's version has required several revisions, this text has not. You People, judge for yourself and choose ye this day whom you will serve, God or mammon.

ATAR_i said...

OTS your beliefs have no basis in scripture, and none in science.

Your beliefs don't come from a spiritual (FLDS or otherwise) or an intellectual base, they have no ground in any anything.

They don't make sense (except for to yourself probably).

As a schitzophrenic you should know that while your word associations mean something to you, it's only because of your disease, and they are irrational gibberish to those of us who do not live inside your diseased mind.

I appreciate the fact that you intend to argue theology, however, your irrational thought processes make this futile.

You can continue to post your nonsensical gibberish, but unless you take your medications - we will never really have a conversation.

Lady Bountiful - thanks for sending the reference - I am going to go look it up now.

onthestreet said...

As a schitzophrenic, sister, you sound very... shall we say, ummm, well...schitzophrenic

ATAR_i said...

Nice try - no cigar.

Anonymous said...

That's what Bill Clinton told Al Gore after the '2000 election.....

"Nice try, but no cigar".

onthestreet said...


ATAR_i said...

The expression actually originated when prizes used to be given at carnivals. You'd play the game and you wouldn't win.

"nice try, no cigar"

Basically OTS keeps trying and LOSING

onthestreet said...

"He who loses his life in the Lord shall find it."

ATAR_i said...

Yeah - you wish.

You are losing arguments to me, thus no cigar

But if you want to equate that with sacrificing your own life for God...

it would be only one of many massive overstatements to build up your fragile ego.

onthestreet said...

Ahh, if my ego is fragile, then it can't be harsh or confrontational, for that is quite the opposite of fragile. Ego is known as something negative, so when we marginalize or fraginalize it, then were are right with God and man. The meek, or shall we say "fragile", shall inherit the earth.

"And even thy enemies shall praise thee".

mugwump said...


"and even thy opponents are disgusted with thee."

ATAR_i said...

OTS, I would characterize someone like you as having 'little man syndrome'. It makes men behave with much bravado (outward signs of boasting in copious amounts) but it's really because they feel inadequate.

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

In other words ots, you need to buy a corvette.

ATAR_i said...


onthestreet said...

Sorry, my Lear is much faster.

mugwump said...


Try your broom.

onthestreet said...

Vrooom, VROOOM,(broom with Jet Assist).

mugwump said...

I wouldn't know, I haven't ridden one.

onthestreet said...

That's it: YOU DON'T KNOW!

ELIJAH: PROPHET AT A LOSS: He came to a broom tree (KJV - Juniper tree), and sat down under it and prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, Lord," he said. ...

Isaiah 14:23 "I will also make it a possession for the porcupineI will sweep it with the broom of destruction," says Yahweh of Armies. ... (KJV) I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I ...

OBSOLETE WORDS IN THE KJV Part 1 By Robert A. Joyner. There are many words in the KJV today that do not convey the meaning to the modern reader that the ... BESOM is an outdated word for broom. In Isaiah 14:23...

mugwump said...

your broom is made of dehydrated broomweed, not of any tree of any description.

onthestreet said...

When you justly invade a community as you do (CC), you dehydrate it of its sap, that God's people may be chastened. "For whom I love, I chasten. Broomweed is also invasive. Ahh, AGAIN, you describe your own self ;). You're doing a good work.

onthestreet said...

See? As Dehydrated and Invasive as broomweed, for while you invade and dehydrate a people, for both good and evil, you are likewise dehydrated and invaded.

mugwump said...

By what authority do you speak? Do you have a "second sight?"

Share your visions. They might give insight into just who you are and why you make such unsubstantial statements.

mugwump said...


I've been waiting for your answer to this question since September 1, @ 11:31 AM. Gonna' try to dodge this one too?

mugwump said...

please note spelling error in 11:31 posting. "unsubstantial" should be "unsubstantiated"

Anonymous said...

Oh, come on mugwump you couldn't make a mistake could you?

onthestreet said...

Even his very conception was probably a mistake.

mugwump said...

11:21 Mugwump has admitted mistakes in typing, in sentence structure. On occasion, hyperbole.

On comparison with Smith's writings in comparison with the Bible, I doubt it.

ATAR_i said...

ots that 'little man' complex is rearing it's ugly head again.

onthestreet said...

Sexual perverts refer to peoples' private parts.

onthestreet said...

If it's not germain to the discussion, but only to belittle a woman or a man, it is only a perversion, having lost everything substantial to the discussion or the issues at hand.

ATAR_i said...

Again - I was referring to your stature not your private parts - you sexualize everything.

onthestreet said...

Ahh, so now that's your excuse. Nice try. Yes, you sexualize it. Do I need to repost some of your sexual perversions from this blog? It seems to be an immoral rock band, and here is how SEXUALIZED IT IS. I don't care to go into some of their lyrics and antics.

Drowned in Sound - Albums - Mybe - Small Man Syndrome Well, Mybe are that band, and ‘Small Man Syndrome' is BAG OF GEMS.

From that website, it says: "With pop-punk taking a noticeable downturn recently in favour of the more VITRIOL VENTING ANTICS of the emo-core crowd it’s refreshing to see a band emerge in 2005 CLUTCHING a bag of good, honest melodic PUNK GEMS sans crybaby
However, overshadowing all this there is enough startling originality and gloriously addictive choruses to more than make up for it and in turn make ‘Small Man Syndrome’ a FIRM FIXTURE in forthcoming summer BBQ playlists.

I'll repost your sexual perversions if you want me to.

ATAR_i said...

your a pervert

onthestreet said...

The protection of children, and the shunning of all sexuality, IS NOT PERVERSION, but quite the opposite.

ATAR_i said...

Your an advocate of the sexualization of children.

You want little girls to marry old men. The old men state they have sex with the little girls.

That makes you an advocate for perversion.

onthestreet said...

Those who do are GONE (the way of all the world).

onthestreet said...

That is, all who do that to women, young, old, or middle-aged. It doesn't matter their age or marital status. If you defile your women in that way, you are sexual perverts, even if you claim them as YOUR wives.

Jesus said the same: "All who look upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery".

ATAR_i said...

OK - let me confirm. You believe sex is bad. In ALL circumstances, married, single, young old, polygamous, monogomous - it's wrong no matter what.

Can you answer that with a yes or no street?

onthestreet said...

Yes, I can answer that with a yes or no answer.

mugwump said...

I presume that both your answers are equally opposing.

onthestreet said...

lol. You're funny.

onthestreet said...

Women are only safe when they say NO to men, and YES to God. Let the Lord make the love. Uncle Rulon and Uncle Warren have taught that all of our lives.

onthestreet said...

Women are only safe when they say YES to such a man of God.