Monday, June 26, 2006

Does Polygamy Work??

Polygamy as a life style is working just fine. The only ones you hear about are the ones having problems. However that is a small percentage compared to the amount of people living in polygamy.

86 comments:

Anonymous said...

Anytime a religion makes polygamy mandatory, you will get abuses. If it is optional as circumstances permit, it may work. If Centennial, Winston, or any other group pounds it down the people that they have to live it now, or be damned, abuses WILL happen.

ATAR_i said...

Well, personally - I think the concept works better for men than women.

Anonymous said...

I have nothing against the people who choose to live polygamy freely. It's forced marriage of young girls against their will that irks me. I'm sure there are some good polygamist families out there. I have nothing against people living their religion but statutory rape is statutory rape. As far as it working better for men than women; obviously it seems that way. I'm not sure I could have more than one husband though as appealing as it may sound.

Anonymous said...

It all depends on what you mean by "work". If "work" means women not speaking up, living in fear, with no choices, then it might work.

If "work" means that all live together happily and fulfilled, then no, it doesn't work.

How do I know? I lived there. I saw it first hand.

onthestreet said...

Okay, that was first hand from one little diddy, perhaps even a filthy hand. Still, Barlow's point is well taken.

How do I know your hand is filthy? I experienced it first hand, just now, in your unhappiness with a good husband, music, and children, and the daily worship of God. You yourself made it fail and made it dirty. Just because one persons hands are dirty doesn't translate very well into the universal world-wide filth of all mankind, because your own hands are dirty, see?

Now, if your family failed you because of a dirty and apostate father or husband (or both), then who's to blame. We pick up, dust off, maybe take a bath, have faith, repent, get baptised, and go on from there. But labeling everything dirty because that is your own experience, is the blind men each describing the elephant in a very different fashion, from the small part that they each can feel and touch.

ATAR_i said...

I suppose I mean I don't believe that polygamy is nearly as fulfilling for women as it might be for men.

'work' was too ambiguous.

Anonymous said...

DOES MONOGAMY WORK/????

fundy said...

it is in fact much easier for women. if there are alot of wifes if your not in the mood or don't want the attention at all, then that's fine. in a monogamous relationship the women takes the role of being every thing the man looks forward to having. However such in not the case in a plural relationship. A women has much more freedom in polygamous relationship. IF she wants it. Women in fact run and are in charge of a polygamous house hold.
The man is really in a secondary role. Although they won't admit it.

miraclesandlove said...

As for OTS’s Reply
We cab wonder is his hands are dirty because he was asked to repent from afar. He can not say it WORKS other than for himself and he has admitted on other bogs that he is an outcast from his own actions.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN SO MANY UNHAPPY PEOPLE AS THE ONES IN POLYGAMY. Other people show their unhappiness most of the time but like battered women not wanting anyone to know they are beaten by their husband, polygamist women and men hide that they are unhappy 90%, or about that, of the time. I know because I have lived among them and in the moments when they felt safe to talk about it and opened up they said it. They then turned around and went home to more quiet misery. It is their dirty little secret. No! Women are truly not happy in polygamy. To admit to being unhappy in polygamy would make them look like they were at fault, because they are taught that they are SUPPOSE to love it. It is very sad.

I talked to a man just last week with 4 wives and asked him if polygamy in and of itself was wrong and if he knew of any polygamist family that it works for. From outwards appearances his family "works". His reply to me was very interesting and he told me things like this,

“I have asked myself that question many times in my life and at I still don't know.

It surely takes a lot of sacrifice and a desire to MAKE it work to not let it take everyone down.

There is a tremendous sacrifice on the part of the women involved.

As far as works, I think it depends on the mix of people. Adding to a working marriage another element always makes it different and then you start over on making it work. It is not easy for the men either and always changing and the elements are as any other relationship.

Take one person that lives alone, and by adding one more it becomes harder to be happy, add another and things are more complex. Each person added makes the mix different and more work".



He is a good man and lives as best he can.


As far as works..... my opinion is this; let consenting adults choose who they marry and live it if they want, but take out the element of have to and the under age marriages and it works better as they are then responsible to live with the decisions THEY made not a cold calculating leader with no concern for how it WORKS. The best way to teach polygamy to the children would be to live it happily and let them choose it. Then they would live it and find out how much "WORK" it is by choice.

There are much better working types of relationships in spite of the high divorce rate in the world. I have seen many more working marriages and happier people in monogamy. Also the children grow up with much better adult level skills when raised in happier families. I know this from my own personal experience with my family, FLDS verses other.

Monogay works only when it the right mix and there is a desire to make it work also.

All marriages take work to make them work. Take your pick. Would you like one that works with less work or one that might work with a lot of work?

miraclesandlove said...

That would be a man's opinion. What does a woman have to look forward to when here husband is not there when she needs him and he is with another women? Should she go out and find something else to look forward to? You should think about the things women suffer so a man can have more than one woman to "LOOK FORWARD TO"
There is no freedom for a woman being neglected because her husband is not able to address the needs and wants of so many women.

Women are not in charge of a polygamist household unless the man allows it behind the scenes. Aren't they taught to obey the man, and don’t most men use that to do whatever they want? That has been my experience in watching polygamist families.

fundy said...

I don't think you have a realistic idea of a polygamous house hold. Men are not really in charge of the house hold. You are over estimating the role of the man. Its very much a womens world there. Alot of women have a very good life in a polygamous relationship, regardless of your personal incorrect opinion.

Anonymous said...

Men are not really in charge in monogomous households either.

That's a good thing.

fundy said...

the man in any relationship spends time away from home. His world is one of work and business. When he comes home he is tired. He is looking to rest and get ready for the next business day. He spends a minimal amount of time in the home.
To figure him a large prescence in the home is not realistic. He is a traveling man , however the women are in control in the home. That is their realm, much more than it is his. He is in a secondary role there, no what the religion is saying.

ATAR_i said...

Fundy,

OK, company - no thanks, I don't want my friends sleeping with my husband.

Less work, well - if you don't count the 54 extra children - maybe.

Not being my husbands whole world. Well, hopefully I'm not his whole world now - I'm his wife - and I want to be his *best* friend - not a face in the crowd so that I don't have to be pressured to be his best friend.

Anyhow - SPEAKING AS A WOMAN - I think it's a rare female bird who would actually WANT that lifestyle.

It's really NOT for the female - poor Emma!

fundy said...

unfortunately most of the US women are not very good as a wife. They are brought up to be confrontational and career oriented. Not good wife material. Fundy women beat them hands down at being a wife. Yes a good wife is rare bird. Been there done that.
Never go back to US women.

Anonymous said...

Bible. A woman's heart shall be to her husband and he shall rule over her.

Anonymous said...

Don't knock the entire population of US women. That's freakin' ludicrous!

ATAR_i said...

Fundy,

I may not be educated on the polygamous lifestyle. But I am educated on the normal daily lifestyle of most American women. And, it is a lifestyle I would say you are equally free to give an opnion on - but have do not have the erudition you claim.

Most of the women that I know do have jobs. Jobs they work from home, telecommute, work part time, work for the schools, and have husbands that SHARE the responsibilities of home with them.

Editors, Nurses, Accountants, you name it. One thing I have found is that when you are busy, you tend to organize yourself, multitasking - to make it all work. Making the phone calls in the car, or while you are waiting to pick up your child from lessons.

So the blanket statement you make is from some sermon, demonizing women who work isn't a true reprsentation - it's a nice little quote - but it's not reality.

Anonymous said...

if consenting adults agree to multiple relationships, then they should also take full responsibility for the fruits of those relationships...living expenses, children, health insurance, food and clothing, education,and homes that are safe and comply with building codes. Taxpayers should not be expected to bear the burden of those choices.

Anonymous said...

Agreed with anon 8:05. I wonder if that's why the YFZ is so self sufficient. They know they can't apply for aid after the crap they've pulled in the past. The state of TX won't have it & their welfare system is screwed up as anyone's. If they DO apply for aid; I hope the welfare people investigate to make sure these people really need it & they;re not doing it dishonestly.

fundy said...

So the blanket statement you make is from some sermon, demonizing women who work isn't a true reprsentation.

I am not trying to demonize at all.
I fully understand the economics of a monogomous family with children trying to make ends meet day to day. They find themselves in a position where they both need to work.

And there are some women who are not interested in marriage and find a career and lifestyle in the work place.

I am addressing the suitability of US women for marriage.

Most of them tend to be high maintenance, always wanting only what they want, arguementative, gold diggers and divorce prone.
Only suitable for young men who don't know any better. But are soon to find out.

Anonymous said...

Oh Fundy. You need to go back in time. Maybe find a time machine so you can go back toa time when women were repressed and not equal. Where women stay home and work all day taking care of children and then when the husband walks in the door, act as though they've been hoping all day long to wait on someone hand and foot a little longer. You don't have to be a woman to stay at home and take care of the house. A man can do it too if the wife were allowed to be educated and they switched jobs. I'm sorry you were born in the wrong era. Times have changed my friend. Women are SMART and EDUCATED and should have every opportunity to reach their career goals as men do. Listening to you I feel like I"m watching a re-run of little house on the prairie.

Anonymous said...

Fundy,

I have said this to others: like the FLDS that don't like to follow our laws. Why don't you move away if the women here are so awful? I , for one, am a US woman. I am smart, educated, have a career but am still looking forward to having a wonderful husband as a best friend. I am not a gold digger, I never want to be divorced, I am not argumentative (actually just the opposite). You shouldn't categorize. That would be just like me saying that all FLDS are child molesters because they're leader is...wouldn't you agree? See what categorizing does? You are doing the EXACT same thing that you request others do not do to you...categorize and assume that all are the same.

Grow up for goodness sake. You sound very ignorant.

Anonymous said...

haha..Fundy.

"Never go back to a US woman"?

What do you want? Some foreigner that is submissive to your lame-butt because she can't speak english and is dependant on you? You don't like US women because they have a mind of their own. Not some brainwashed submissive that you were wishing for to boss around. And maybe they (US Women) don't like you in return because most things that come out of your mouth are repulsive. Listening to you, and I'm not even an argumentative person, I would want to have an argument or two with you myself. I think you would outright annoy me.----thank goodness for good old American Women. Keep creeps like you hiding in the mountains.

fundy said...

The fundy women has more to offer a man than just about any women any where. You don't have a women putting on so much makeup that she looks like it's halloween. You don't have to worry about silicon implants or wondering if she has them. You have a women that if you treat her right she will stand bye her man. Yes MUCH better than you can find ANYWHERE ELSE. Raised from childhood to be a mother and wife and NOT a trouble maker, like most of the women on the outside.

Anonymous said...

I've lived with the same wife for forty-five years and never have noticed that she wore too much make up. When she used it, it was tasteful, never in excess. Incidently, she never did need any kind of implant either. I liked her just like she was.

We have been through some pretty tough times but we made it through, TOGETHER. There have been years of enough and years of need, but we, as a couple, a pair, mates, one flesh made do just fine.

Now don't think that we get along well together all the time. To make such a statement would be an out and out lie. I don't worry about her if I should preceed her in death, she's a strong woman and will make do just fine.

If we have one of our temper fits we just wait a bit then sit down and sort the thing out. Apologize if necessary, it don't cost nothin'.

We raised our children to be independent and to have good judgement. They all are born-again Christians, including their spouses and so are all the grandchildren so in retrospect, we must have done some things right.

nuf sed

Anonymous said...

I must be confused...are FLDS women not US women? Aren't they American also? If so, (and most likely they are), they must wear a ton of make-up and all have silicone implants. You need to get out in the world more often. Again, I am educated, smart, a professional that works very hard and luckily I am very pretty with blond hair, blue eyes and in shape because I like to take care of myself and not neglect my body. And, believe it or not, I rarely wear any makeup and I am 100% real. You will not find any silicone on me. So, you are talking about something you obviously have no idea about. Maybe you read too many tabloids or watch too much television. Just so you know, the people in the tabloids and on television are just a small percentage of the US population. A VERY small percentage. And not only are they a small percentage, but they are usually a rare exception to the regular, every day people in the US. Also, I am not married yet, but I do have a boyfriend that I love very much. I am open and honest with him as he is with me. We are a wonderful couple that would give anything for each other. I take care of him and he takes care of me. Since I work and he does also, we invite each other over when the other works late to have dinner ready. We support each other in good and bad times and you know what? I'm an AMERICAN WOMAN. Again, you shouldn't talk about something that you apparently don't know much about. Once again you sound quite ignorant. And from your last statement you proved my exact point of having a submissive wife. Wouldn't you rather have someone CHOOSE to be your partner in life after she was raised to be a strong, self sufficient woman? I think that makes it even better that I choose to commit to him with all the strengths I have. And, one last thing, what happens when something happens to you since she has never worked? Teaching someone to be a great mother and a lady doesn't have anything to do with being FLDS. You sure aren't helping her or your daughters, if you have any, to be self sufficient in life. If you were to pass and your wife is left alone, it sure is hard to pay the taxes when your only skill is being a great mother. Quite sad. I have an excellent mother that taught me all those things and she works. She taught me how to set a table the proper way, cook, be a good hostess..all the things that you claim American women aren't. But on the flipside..my boyfriend's parents taught him almost all those same things too. Maybe you should learn so you could help your wife rather than have her wait on you. What an idea.

fundy said...

You need to get married and quite living in sin. A typical sex in the city relationship.

ATAR_i said...

Fundy,

Monogamy has little to do with two couples needing to work.

Where I live DOES. The price for a starter home is in the mid 300's - I am not in a starter home. I have four children - all participating in activities as well.

The culture of where I live, select sports, camps, equitation, music tutors, are a huge part of the community - and they cost.

You can tell me these are stupid, I should stay at home, can, and not send my children to community activities.

That would be rather like me telling you to 'get a huge satelite dish so you can watch MTV, and get your wife a job as a stripper for extra cash'.

So, you live in a different area - the cost of living is less, the culture of the community is...what it is.

Same here - I live in an area where the cost of living is HIGH, and the culture of the community is....what it is.

Anyhow - just because it's different doesn't mean it's WORSE - can't it just be DIFFERENT. I really hate having competitions with people about 'who lives better than whom', 'who is smarter than whom', 'who is more pious than whom' etc etc etc (OK - Yul Brynner is solidly coming to mind).

ATAR_i said...

Have you ever watched 'sex in the city?' - personally - I just saw my first episode - it was about shoes - so I guess I don't get the comment.

In the US - we like to date. I realize that is culturally not a norm for the FLDS - however that doesn't make it an activity to be scorned.

I find 'giving a woman to a man' probably as offensive as you find dating. If I was from a culture that had arranged marriages - I probably wouldn't find it offensive - but I'm not.

Just as you can't help feeling offended by the idea of dating - because you were raised in a culture of arranged marriage.

Anonymous said...

Hey Fundy,
Get your mind out of the gutter and stop being so bloody self-righteous.

That post above says NOTHING about her living with her boyfriend. It only says that they respect each other and help each other out - when one has to work late in the day, the other one prepares dinner for both of them.

DINNER THAT'S ALL IT SAYS.

The part about living in sin is all in your imagination !!!!!

She said "they invite each other over" - that you MORON says that they are NOT living together.

That is a loving couple and you are trying to make something dirty out of it.

You should be ashamed; you are pathetic!

But, what if a man and a women WERE truly living together? Kinda like the polygamists men who shack up with their multitudes of concubines.

They're the ones who are living in sin!

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

Fundy -

You do not judge fairly.

You wield your opinion as truth.

Proverbs 31:16

"She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard

READ the whole chapter to find out what a real woman is.

Personally - I'll go for Proverbs 31 over your opinion ANY DAY.

Yeah - the Proverbs 31 woman not only raises her kids, clothes her family, gets up early, fears the Lord, speaks wisdom, she sews clothing, she buys fields, she is dignified, honorable, is not idle, she plants a vineyard, she supplies merchants with sashes, sells linen garments.

OK - THIS GAL WORKS, AND is a mother.

Ka-Ching

Proverbs 31

fundy said...

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life. She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands. She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar. She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls. She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks. She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night. In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers. She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy. When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple. Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes. She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all." Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Anonymous said...

So you can copy from the book. Atar_i's one up on you. She applys the lesson whereas you quote it.

Give me application every time.

Satan knows the truth and of his ultimate demise and trembles in fear. Maybe you ought to be looking to the future and the probable consequences of your "mind being cement, all mixed up and permanently set", rather than condemning those who are living in the present and making significant contributions to family and community.

rcn

Anonymous said...

Fundy,

"The true nature of a women is in the home raising her children. The work place is for the man. Career women are not real women , but something in between trying to compete with men, in a work place they don't belong in."

Jeez-WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT CENTURY. TIMES HAVE CHANGED! From your comments, I believe you are threatened by women in the workplace. That's the only reason I can come up with as to why you would be so adamant about them staying home. I have to admit that in some ways we are stronger and would pass you up in a professional world. For one, with your views you wouldn't get very far..at least not in my business. And two, a woman that stays home does work very hard. My sister is a stay at home mom. I think sometimes she, at home, works way harder than me in my office. I think you should try and take your wife's place for just one day and let her go do whatever she wants. Then you could see that a career outside the home is actually EASIER than staying at home. And she would kick your butt if you worked side by side in a professional manner.

And from my previous post.. I guess you would prefer some woman that was taught to be weak and submissive and forced to be with you rather than someone that is strong and chooses to be with you. You never did answer my question of what happens if something happens to you and she isn't self sufficient. I'm guessing you didn't have an answer for that. You also never answered if the FLDS women are American, seeing as you hate American women so much.

Also, I never said anything about having sex with my boyfriend. I claimed we are a team and take care of each other. Thank GOD I have him and not some lame-a** person like you that wants to hold me down rather than see me shine. He supports me in whatever I do.

A woman should be able to choose what she wants to do. She should be taught that she is as mentally strong and smart as any man. She should be taught (any person should be) that everyone is equal. There is not one place where a man or woman belongs. It is what feels good to that person and what makes them happy. This way, they will be more successful at whatever it is they choose. If they choose to be a stay at home mom, then she would enjoy it much more than she would going to an office. If she were to choose to go to an office, then she may be a miserable person staying at home all the time--just because it's her "place" (according to you).

Grow up, Fundy. Or maybe that's the problem. Maybe you're some old cranky person that is 80 and stuck in his ways. You're probably someone that still uses awful words when you talk about anyone that is not caucasian. Again, times have changed. Get out into the world.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I'm glad i'm an athiest & none of this applies to me.

Anonymous said...

To anon 1:23

We don't believe in athiests here. Ergo, you don't exist and the admin should delete your post.

Anonymous said...

First, I'm not married Fundy. I prefer to wait until I am before having any children. I want to bring them into a world where they have both parents to support them. Not just a single mother that would have to work even harder (because a single mother cannot stay home unless they live off of the system, which I will NEVER EVER do) And you assume a lot. Who said I only want relationships out of life? Just because I am in a relationship and have a career, doesn't mean that I only wish to work at an office my entire life and have just a boyfriend. Luckily for me, I get to choose by husband. I would never rush into something like that just so I can be a mom. I want to have children but with the wrong person that would be bad for the whole family. I do love children. And, I'm a great aunt to three absolutely wonderful nephews. So, before you assume, you should make sure you know all the facts. ...Have you ever heard the saying "When you assume it makes an a** out of you and me (ass-u-me).A women's place is where she wants it to be. A woman can multi-task and have EVERYTHING. She doesn't have to stay home all the time to be a wonderful and endearing mother. She can adore her children and care for them like anyone else while still being involved in other activities. ie: a career, volunteering at a local shelter, etc One more point to make is that I definitely still believe in chilvary. But that does not mean in any way holding a woman back from all the wonderful opportunities out in this world. Plus, teaching children is a very important aspect in having them and I believe the more experiences you have in life, the more you are able to teach your children how to live in a positive manner and be respectful to other people.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Fundy,

You still don't answer any of my questions. Why do you keep ignoring them? You're starting to sound like OTS. He beats around the bush, throws out whatever sounds good to change the subject or ingore a question and then moves on. I want to know if FLDS women are American. And if so, do they wear a lot of make-up and have silicone implants. What happens if you are no longer around and your wife has no skills except cooking andstaying at home with children because she was not educated from the start because she's a woman and "her place is in the home"?

You keep throwing stones yet live in a glass house.

Anonymous said...

3:39

Your assessment is very good. I too sense that in all probability fundy is incapable of answering a question that would apply in his narrow little world yet have any application in the real world. It seems as if redundancy is the most common method of avoiding having to substantuate any point of view, valid or invalid. Sometimes I wonder if ots is the student, the teacher or the other half of a split-personality.

rcn

ATAR_i said...

Fundy - the way you express yourself is driving me crazy.

" The true nature of a women is to have children and nuture and care for them."

I believe your using the word "nature" in the sense that it is "the essential characteristics and qualities of a person"

It's driving me crazy how weird that statement sounds. Please say something like 'The true nature of a woman is to be a mother'.

Now that we've got that settled, you are correct - women are nuturing. However, motherhood is not the only condition in which this nature can express itself - IF IT WERE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BEAR CHILDREN UNTIL THE END OUR DAYS.

Motherhood is only ONE of the ways that a womans natural qualities can be expressed. We are all fearfully and wonderfully made.

Do not make small minded attempts to put your own ugly cyclone fence of 'natural expressions' around Gods limitless possibilities to use me, a woman.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This is kind of long...

The word “most” is rather misleading. I am not sure why the media portrays that “most” people living plural marriage are in groups who follow a leader, however, statistics show that “most” people involved in plural marriages are what is termed independent. As an independent “most” live like the Henrickson’s in Big Love with the children in public schools, no arranged marriages, no underage marriages, just folks who have felt a calling to live what is written in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. So that is most in the "mormon" section, then you have the folks who have chosen this with no religion as a factor.

Between the two largest groups of organized "mormon type" people the stats seem to show that one group the (FLDS) has about 10,000 and one group (AUB) about 7,000. That is 17,000. Some sites have stated that there are upwards of 100,000 people living in these type of families. Others go as low as 30,000. If the number is somewhere in the middle, say 50,000 to 60,000 then 17,000 is not most.

So lets see, Wilt Chamberlaine claimed to have slept with 25,000 women. How many did he have children with? give STD"s to? take responsibility for? But ya know, the guy was a hero is our sports worshipping world.

Here is a link to an article about a woman who felt it was the "ultimate feminist lifestyle" http://www.4thefamily.us/node/53

Also here are some transcripts of a MSNBC interview with Tucker Carlson. If you click on the link in the article you can watch the video however, you must be using Microsoft Internet Explorer to watch the video at MSNBC.
http://www.4thefamily.us/node/33

A few links as to where the numbers came from

It was the Christian Science Monitor that reported the 100,000 figure.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0130/p02s01-ussc.html
A Christian Polygamist site doing an article on Tom Green also uses the 100,000 number
http://www.nccg.org/fecpp/CPM058-TomGreen.html

Tapestry also uses the 100,000 number. The A-G’s office in Utah seems to stick to the 25,000 – 50,000 numbers. About half way down this article you will see the 50,000 number quote
http://www.sltrib.com/polygamy/ci_3864161

Anyway, just some thoughts about the word "most" and the confusion with the thought that anyone living plural marriage that is Mormon is FLDS, which is simply not the case.

onthestreet said...

miraclesandlove said (6/27/2006 1:20 PM):

As for OTS’s Reply:
We cab wonder is his hands are dirty because he was asked to repent from afar. He can not say it WORKS other than for himself and he has admitted on other bogs that he is an outcast from his own actions.


STREET’s Reply: Whoa Nelly, ya got her backwards there. My hands weren’t dirty because I was asked to repent from afar. Quite the opposite, or shall I say “bass ackwards”: I was asked to repent from afar BECAUSE my hands were dirty. See? Ya need ta git da widdo howsey befow da widdo caot. You get your thinking straight, and then you can repent, see?

onthestreet said...

fundy said (6/27/2006 6:29 PM):
the man in any relationship spends time away from home. His world is one of work and business. When he comes home he is tired. He is looking to rest and get ready for the next business day. He spends a minimal amount of time in the home.
To figure him a large prescence in the home is not realistic. He is a traveling man , however the women are in control in the home. That is their realm, much more than it is his. He is in a secondary role there, no what the religion is saying.


STREET’s Reply: Well, that’s why you’re an outcast. In God’s house, God rules. In the house of a true Priesthood man, the man rules. He is a veritable benevolent DICTATOR. He dictates a perfect order. However funny (excuse me, I meant fundy), yur point is well enough taken. A true Priesthood man is not overbearing, nor is he a bear, except maybe a clean and immaculate teddy bear, to his women. The women rule the children, and manage the workings of the home. The man oversees it all, as much as God does Himself, the largest presence of all. Anything else is just not realistic.

onthestreet said...

Hey, you all have your place. Every man, woman, and child on the planet have the right to be here, or the wouldn't be here. Each have their role to play, for good or evil, for better or for worse, and for a very small few: For time and all eternity.

Anonymous said...

Fundy, again nothing answered.

"The highest potential a man or women can come to while in this life is to find that person in whom the union of marriage will last beyond death and into the next world to come. They are equally dependent one on the other in this quest. Few are that find such a union."

Where does this fit in to what we're talking about? You have gone a totally different direction. What you say above, I agree with. That has nothing to do with a women staying at home to be a mother her entire life though. And, I have given up on any response from you to my questions. Unless, this is the answer to what happens if you pass. I don't think you'll be dropping pennies from heaven if you do.

Are you and OTS brothers?

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

My husbands job does not keep him constantly travelling. He earns a very good income, and is home most days to see his children off to school, and when they arrive home in the afternoon. Both of our schedules afford that luxury more often than not.

Your perceptions of male and female roles are based on your culture. My husband is not an absent presence - but vital, influential and substantial. Both of us are involved in the daily running of our household and land.

We both work outside our home, but have pursued careers that allow for good income, as well as maximizing the hours spent with family.

My sister, who lives just a small walk up the hill does not work outside the home, but has a small business that she does from home, and her husband telecommutes. On any given day if one of my children needed someone to stay with them when the are sick - chances are there might be four people available for just that one child.

Again - you view the world from your perspective. Based on your experience, the only thing you know, you assume that is the way it is (and should be) for everyone.

I look at the same thing from a very different perspective - and cannot conceive of having a husband who is not a vital, influential, and ever present part of me and my children's lives.

So perhaps you are not right, and I am not right - we are both DIFFERENT.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
onthestreet said...

DIFF-RUNT? Hmmm. Just a thought.

onthestreet said...

That was in reply to: 6/30/2006 2:22 PM. Fundy beat me to the lemonade (oops, I should say, the punch), by 3-minutes. You waskal you.

ATAR_i said...

Fundy,

I can see how a man with many children would avoid state marriages - it makes him responsible for his children.

A man who is legally unmarried to a childs mother is usually assessed less in child support should it come to that.

A man who is not legally married is not bound to pay a wife support should it not work out.

A man who is not married can still gain 'legal access' to his children - as if he were married - and get visitation - as if he had been married.

So yes, if a man doesn't marry a woman it is FOR HIMSELF ALONE - and has NO BENEFIT TO THE FEMALE WHATSOEVER.

If a man marries a woman and they divorce he usually is expected to support her, and their children in the same manner as before. Thus - he would be paying alimony and child support (especially if the wife is not employed outside the home).

For me, I'm not naive enough to believe that my marriage is indestructable - I keep working at it - and never take it for granted. I am confident (or I wouldn't have married my husband) that he is of the same mind that we will not divorce.

So, for us, legal marriage is the option that is best for both of us. It allows us to count both incomes to purchase a home, it affords us both automatic legal rights to our children, taxes, travel, you name it - way better for us.

I do not however (based on what I have heard form FLDS faithful) believe that these polygamous marriages have a higher success rate. If my husband and I divorce - that is one marriage that is not a success. If a polygamous man with 15 wives is booted - that is 15 unsuccessful marriages. I'd be curious to see current statistics on the rate of polygamous 'spiritual divorce'. Without that - no real comparison as to who has more can be ascertained.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

As a female (who works) - my husbands alimony to myself (should a split - God forbid - ever happen WOULD BE LESS).

Most, if any monies he would give me, would be for the children - should I have them a larger portion of time than he did (which only makes sense, as I would be responsible for more food/care).

While I will agree with you that the courts do favor women - it has not always been so, and thus this shift is not altogether upsetting to my senses.

I do not agree with ONE parent taking the child, and no contact with the other parent being allowed - unless there is a reasonable substantiated belief that one parent is causing harm to their child.

I CERTAINLY DO NOT AGREE WITH ONE PARENT BEING GIVEN THE CHILDREN - NO QUESTIONS ASKED - SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THEIR GENITALIA.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

Again let me reiterate that custody should NEVER be determined by gender solely.

Wether a parent has a certain religious persuasion or not, does not indicate their superior ability to care for and raise a child.

I vehemently disagree with any religious philosophy which does not take the welfare of the child seriously, placing them only with the parent who remains of the same religious persuasion.

If I were a woman, and decided to leave the FLDS, my LEGAL standing would be absolute.

I would be able to walk from that town, with my children gathered around me and be COMPLETELY FINE. Sine no man has legally married me - he has NO LEGAL RIGHTS to the children, unless he appeals to the court for them.

I took MY children. Other than the fear you put in these women that they cannot have their children. Other than the terror they must feel that someone will capture them - YOU HAVE NO LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE CHILDREN STAY - NONE!

Despite your belief in your own superiority based on the hormones that course through your body, and a small appendage hidden under your shorts, you are NOT actually superior to me, or any women.

Oh, I realize you've been born and bred into the belief that you are superior to women - but that doesn't make it true.

Lest you feel too superior - When God created his son - he didn't use a man (just a woman).

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fttc said...

Fundy

While you may claim to be a fundamentalist mormon yourself you do not understand the workings of the FLDS. Please name one instance where the children in the FLDS have stayed with the father. It doesn't happen. Per John Taylor's own words and repeated by Rulon Jeffs, the children stay with the mother. It is the fathers that are losing their children left and right in the FLDS. Once again you do not know what you are talking about.

ATAR_i said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ATAR_i said...

Children are not possessions. They cannot be bought, they cannot be sold, they cannot be bartered.

Children born in the US are United States Citizens. They are not the property of other citizens NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION.

AND furthermore, I doubt that FLDS consider children possessions (warren jeffs probably being the exception), it's probably your own personal warped belief couched under a veil of religiousity (much like street legitimizing his lust for prepubescent females as something spiritual).

Like it or not - you ARE in the US - IT existed before YOU before Joseph Smith, before Mormonism, before FLDS.

And, unlike you, the US does not consider children something to be possessed. CLEARLY children have a much more legitimate and independent status than YOU like. Given to the by the simple fact of their birth. YOU cannot take that away from them, no matter what you believe - IT IS THEIRS.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fundy said...

Has street been lusting again. I told him to quite that.. All that religious gumbo he talks and now he is stooping to lusting again.

prepubescent females hmmmm???

He needs to find a girl friend to take care of his needs ans wants.

onthestreet said...

What post are you referring to, fundy?

My FLDS girlfriends take perfect care just the way they are.

fundy said...

Do any of you know of someone who does house cleaning in CC??

Anonymous said...

I know someone in Cane Beds who cleans houses. Can she help? Or are you wanting to exploit a relationship with someone from the creek?

fundy said...

I have heard of business that comes from cc and cares for elderly people in town. Any one have the name of the business or a phone number??

Anonymous said...

OH!!! You're Phishing.. sorry I asked.

muggsey said...

Your hands just caught up with your mind streetie.

What 'ya gotta do to get back into the profit's good graces? Furnish him with a dozen little boys to use as playthings?

I get the feeling that afar is not quite as great a distance as should have been the banishment.

ATAR_i said...

muggsey - you don't sound at all like mugwump. I noticed on an earlier post you put aka mugwump - are you claiming to be him?

muggsey said...

Absolutely Atar_i,

For some reason my posting name and password was being rejected as invalid. I established the second name, as familiar to the first as possible so that there would be no question as to whom it was that was posting. I think that if you read some of the posts on other threads you will find the common thread of faith, the Grace of God, security of the believer and that works are not good for salvation, but are expected as fruit of the Grace of God having control of one's life.

ATAR_i said...

ahhh, well at least it wasn't an imposter. A couple of your first posts with the new name were SHORT - so I was worried - glad you are back, new name and all!

OTS will have to come up with some new slams, and biblical references to your new name - this should be fun.

muggsey said...

If polygamy was so great why didn't God take several more of Adam's ribs and make him a harem?

onthestreet said...

Muggsey: Adam's rib is a symbolism of immaculate conception, which comes from the recesses of the heart, and these are protected by the ribs. The Jews call their Rabbi's "Reb" for a reason.

Furthermore, the Stone edition of the Chumash renders the verse this way: "...and He took one of his sides and He filled in the flesh in its place." Right away you can see that what God took from Adam was a lot more than a small bone. But can this reading be justified? Let us examine other places in the Bible where this
Hebrew word is used. We find that it is rendered “side” in a number of places.

Look at Exodus 25:12. In referring to the rings of gold on the Ark of the Covenant it says: " Two rings (which also relate to wedding-bands) shall be on one side ( tselo - a variant of tsela) and two rings on the other side" Later in verse 14 it refers to the two "sides" ( tselot- the plural form). Exodus 37:3-5 shows this same description of the Ark.

The right side of all creation is called the male side, and the left is the female, with all of its correspondences: Darkness, weakness, evil (Eve), judgement, theory, and literally thousands of concepts, conditions, traits, and principles, that are on the left hand of God, and others on the right.

Sorry, I wasn’t going to post here, but I logged on and was this, and decides maybe you would enjoy the input. If not, you can just delete it like all my other posts. Admittedly, all those deletions have taken the wind out of my sails. I see your posts, and I could daily correct many errors and misconceptions, but I will busy myself now in other endeavors. That seems to be what the bloggers prefer, and I will oblige.

Anonymous said...

If Americans were aware of the filth, lies, and corruption that goes on in polygamy, the entire nation would rise up in arms against it. Polygamists are dilusional, and they're a menace to society. A film like Banking on Heaven barely touches the surface of the heinous crimes commited in the FLDS. One polygamist I know is impregnating two of his daughters, and his other wives know it. But that's no biggie to them.

Don't listen to perpetrators. A polygamist would murder you in the blink of an eye - take everything you own, and rape your virgin daughters. You're doomed to hell, and all the sweet-talk is smoke and mirrors. A polygamist would slit your throat, and the throats of your children, before he'd give up his control. Polygamists are calloused, self-rightseous criminals - born and bred.

muggsey said...

Well, according to Genesis 2:21 there was nothing symbolic about woman's creation. The creation experience was real, although science has been trying to prove many other theories, their efforts have failed.

You people have made up yor own gospel, rules, laws and pracrtices that have nothing to do with man's salvation. They are enacted to make those participating 'feel' as if they are righteous persons. Their coffers are full of their own opinions regarding good works, but their spiritual lives are empty shells because Jesus is not Lord, self is.

ATAR_i said...

ack - I saw the word immaculate conception and could read no further - enough with that!

onthestreet said...

TAR: Jesus, your Lord, was and is an immaculate conception, but you can read no further. Enough of that. You will have no part of it. However, your confession of that fact still shows some intelligence on your part.

ANONYMOUS Said (7/26/2006 3:13 AM):
If Americans were aware of the filth, lies, and corruption that goes on in polygamy, the entire nation would rise up in arms against it. Polygamists are dilusional, and they're a menace to society. A film like Banking on Heaven barely touches the surface of the heinous crimes commited in the FLDS. One polygamist I know is impregnating two of his daughters, and his other wives know it. But that's no biggie to them.

The Fundamentalist Church in Texas sires children with their WIVES, while the world and many so-called "fundamentalist" groups sire children with their neighbors' wives, girlfriends, even complete strangers on the street. The whole world knows that.

Americans are aware of your filth, lies, and corruption. This is why America is up in arms today, at war. It has to do with your morality, and God's decree to wipe the earth clean of a nation that has murdered millions of little children, and insults Christ as their Lord. You are the menace to society, and you are quite aware of that fact.

onthestreet said...

MUCKSEE Said (7/26/2006 2:32 PM):
Well, according to Genesis 2:21 there was nothing symbolic about woman's creation. The creation experience was real, although science has been trying to prove many other theories, their efforts have failed.

You people have made up yor own gospel, rules, laws and pracrtices that have nothing to do with man's salvation. They are enacted to make those participating 'feel' as if they are righteous persons. Their coffers are full of their own opinions regarding good works, but their spiritual lives are empty shells because Jesus is not Lord, self is.


STREET’s Reply: Christ spoke many symbolisms (parables), yet they were true. Symbolisms are not false, but higher truths, archtypes. Science has proven much of it, and does not always fail. The FLDS Gospel is the Gospel of all nations, as quickly as they learn to overcome the many false traditions that God has allowed, to test and develop their souls. The whole world is even into polygamy. There is not a soul on the planet who is not a polygamist, one Father of us all, and millions of women procreate for that one man. That is polygamy, or more accurately polygyny.

See, it is the world that has made up its own gospels, rules, laws, and practices, and Christ Himself says that it is so. Therefore, Mucksee, you make yourself an enemy to the very Lord you proclaim.

ATAR_i said...

I just can't stand your diatribes on immaculate conception - gotta stop putting yourself on the same level with the scriptures.

muggsey said...

The whole idea of Immaculate Conception comes from the Roman Catholic Church allowing and encouraging Mary to be considered as "Mother of God." Mid-Eastern, Greek and Roman pagan religions all worshiped mother figures so to add Mary as an equal with God, capable of interceeding in behalf of mankind, made Catholicism easier to sell to the masses.

She was indeed mother to the physical Jesus, but God was Father of His Spirit. The creator had no trouble in creating a human being in Mary's womb. He made Adam from dust of the earth and Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Causing Mary to become pregnant with the Holy One of God was no problem for I AM. He who spoke light into existance, created the earth, Sun, Moon, stars, Plants, Animals, Insects, Creatures that live in water, that fly in the air, that eat flesh, that eat straw. Why should His ability to cause Mary to give birth to a child become such a volatile issue?

There was no physical union between God and Mary. When Jesus was born she had never 'known' a man. Joseph knew what was going on and respected Mary for being God's handmaiden. He took her to wife but knew her not until after Jesus was born.

All of this is common knowledge. To dwell upon the 'how' of Mary's being with child is
inconsequential. It seems as if that particular subject is an anathema for sweetie streetie the Limp Wrist.

onthestreet said...

Limp and limber, agile as flower.

ATAR_i said...

Do you use words that you think make you sound intelligent?

The operative word here is THINK.

Your complete lack of knowledge, with regards to common words, makes you look ridiculous.