Monday, July 24, 2006

Higher Principle Polygamy

I simply do not understand the level to which this doctrine bothers so many sisters. A loving, healthy household of sister-wives functioning together in life, each loving their husband and loving each other enough to share that husband, cooperating, supporting each other, sharing life’s joys and struggles as sisters should sounds like a fantastic, stable, and empowering way to live. I will continue to view it so and to caution any faithful Latter-day Saint away from open condemnation of it

26 comments:

ATAR_i said...

I always dreamed on my wedding night my husband would be cradled by his other wife from behind - what a Cinderella story.

C'mon girls - who wouldn't want that! My uterus is certainly up for a challenge, and I've always wanted to be incontinent - haven't you? Oh, and I hear the most wonderful things about vaginal prolapse these days.

I've spent too much time reading, I should probably change more diapers, and slave over a hot stove more. Europe Shmeurope - I don't need to travel, I love wearing long underwear in the summer in the middle of the desert - who wants to see the mediteranean, or the pyramids of Egypt?

And my G-d, the sound of my husband humping another woman in the next room - it's like music to my ears - of course, when I get my own trailer I won't hear that sweet rhythmic rattle any more - oh such sadness.

I can't understand why any woman wouldn't want that either - it just boggles the mind.

barlow said...

I hope to imprint on the minds of our readers at this site that the practice of polygyny is beneficial to whatever culture we may come from and is protective of the FAMILY

Anonymous said...

You'll never convince us that polygyny is beneficial to women and children, Barlow.

You, Fundy and Street should start your own blog, since it sounds like you all have "prophet-envy."

ATAR_i said...

You can't do that, you're a man.

It's basically like a parent saying. "My kids hate candy, they wouldn't eat it even if you offered it to them. But we still feel the need to tell them all candy is laced with cyanide, and will slowly kill you. You have absolutely no chance to live if you eat candy of any kind"

"Instead, we tell them to eat lots of raw potatoes, because raw potatoes fill you with the love of God, and will eventually lift you up to heaven"

"Our children would rather eat raw potatoes than candy any day."


WELL DUH, they've never tasted candy, they are scared to death to taste candy, and they KNOW potatoes ensure salvation.

Just because they eat potatoes doesn't mean they like them. Just because they practice polygamy doesn't mean they like it. You've twisted their arms and lied to them - and you think they are happy?

muggsey said...

Sic 'em atar_i

I'll bet that most of those self promoting male demi-gods never met a woman as outspoken and indignant as you. It's a pity. A few nights of amore being interrupted by a bucket of ice water would do these guys a world of good. Advice FLDS Men: Go take a cold shower! You'll never get one up on this gal. You collectivly just ain't smart enough.

Anonymous said...

Barloe, three threads all saying the same thing. We are not the FLDS and we don't get brainwashed by reading three different threads on the same subject like you brainwash your women there.

Anonymous said...

As I stated in one of Barlow's other threads where he states the same thing - I do not practice polygamy, but I do know a few people that do, BUT they are in the 21st century like the rest of us. They have all absolutely agreed to this lifestyle. It was never forced on them and not even their parents are polygamous. They just desired this themselves and did what made them happy. It was not for religious reasons. It's just because they are happier with sister wives. The women have goals and this helps them reach them faster. In one family the women are both working on their Master's degrees. They LOVE the company and actually don't mind sharing their husband. But again, they also live in the same century as the rest of us. They wear whatever they want. Nothing is dictated to them out of fear. I have no problem with this.

My problem is when this is forced on women. They don't have a choice because they are told they are damned and will go to hell if they don't marry and have multiple sister wives. They are not given a chance to be educated and better themselves. They are told to have a big swish on the top of their head, because if their hair is not worn that way then they will also be damned? Never knew God chose how you should wear your hair. They don't have to wear prairie dresses..etc.

If someone CHOOSES a lifestyle because it makes them happy, that is their choice and their life to live. It's not my life and they should live it how they want to. But if someone is forced into it to make babies for men that just want to sleep around..well that's another story. It should be a choice. No one can judge another person's desires. But we can criticize when it is forced. Forcing anything by making them fear something is just unexcusable.

erichard said...

Many of us still believe that there are many, many problems among Mormon fundamentalist groups. Beware. Unless the head of a work is a true disciple of Jesus Christ AND has a gift of revelation for guidance from the LORD, then it will be better to be a complete independent than to follow such a person. "Higher Principle Polygamy" can only occur when the LORD has His Oracle among a people. My own testimony is in the revelations in the Second Book of Commandments. (www.2bc.com)

Anonymous said...

The FLDS maintain their vows of purity and secrecy, not to hide evil, but to hide up against such evil. There are many spiritual gifts in spiritual unions.

All who are critics of God's system of marriage would go to a wedding without bringing a gift, thinking you're Gods gift to women. What kind of a horse's azz gift is that?

You men wouldn't even manage to impress with an inflatable crotch.

ATAR_i said...

Even if you did have what you considered to be 'His Oracle' women would still be told that their only chance to enter heaven is through the principle of polygamy, and probably have their husband chosen for them.

Why are women given so little choice and so few options.

onthestreet said...

Why Atari? Because you are not part of the FLDS. Outsiders have always had far fewer choices and options.

Anonymous said...

OTS that doesn't even make sense. What's new.

muggsey said...

World traveler, scholar, seer and all around good sport, OTS is as lost as a flea in a flushing toilet. Round and round and round, yet never making a lick of sense.

ATAR_i said...

OTS - I'm talking about your women.

I have my salvation dependent on my relationship with God, and nothing else.

I chose to be married and chose the man I would marry.

I have those choices - why have you denied those to your women?

onthestreet said...

TARRY (7/26/2006 5:25 PM): Right, and I too am talking about our women. Come on, girly, git with it. You asked a question, and I simply answered. Here, let’s remind all the good fokes here: You asked: “Why are women given so little choice and so few options. (7/25/2006 11:32 PM). And my answer? Why Atari? Because you are not part of the FLDS. Outsiders have always had far fewer choices and options.

Tarry! I was born and raised there, and lived there for over 50-years! Do you think I would know that our women choose their husbands. You bet they do! God reveals, and the women CHOOSE God’s will, and with great joy I will add. Only the rebels feel impinged upon, and those fall away, having rejected the marriage supper of the Lamb. The faithful FLDS women have the most options of all the women upon this earth. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free”. They are the freest from all the heartache and disease and immorality and abuse that is suffered by outsiders and those who have become outsiders. Those are the ones you label as diseased and abused FLDS. They are not FLDS at all.

You say that you have your salvation dependent on your relationship with God, while God Himself says: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. See, God is duplicating Himself, making new gods after His own image. To try and bust through to His throne, and bypass His undershepherds, is an insult to God, and make you an enemy to God.

Mt. 7:22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


MUCK-SEE Said:
World traveler, scholar, seer and all around good sport, OTS is as lost as a flea in a flushing toilet. Round and round and round, yet never making a lick of sense.

STREET’s Reply: There you go. Excellent description of you and I. I am a flea, in comparison to God, and you are the toilet, and having eye to see but see not, and ears to hear and hear not, ye perceive not a lick of sense. Really quite an intelligent analogy, MUCKSEE.

desert darling said...

Atari

Shame on you. You would think of only one cenario and believe taht there is no good side. What happened to being fair? Even I would not like to live as you described. It doesn't have to be that way.
Women don't have to be baby makers in polygamy. I for one don't have any intention of trying to win the "who has the most baby's" race.
We certainly don't have to listen to bedroom noises nor live in poverty! I am not going to be a victim!
If and when I choose a sister wife, it will be someone I can live with. Notice I said "I choose". So maybe I will be hard to live with. Not if the one I find shares the same views and values.

ATAR_i said...

Oh darlin' you have to watch out for me when I get a burr under my saddle, I say outrageous things.

Not that they don't have some degree of truth to them, which makes them stingy, but they are, as you say one sided, so not always altogether fair.

The comment you read was my reaction to equally rosy unrealistic portrait of polygamy (which I notice you didn't object to). That's where you say - 'ouch' she's right.

desert darling said...

ok, "ouch, she's right"

It does need to be realistic.

ATAR_i said...

I'm going to enjoy havin you on board darlin'.

onthestreet said...

If you have an old horse, and you live in a desert, is you desert darling synonymous to your desert hag? Sounds reasonable.

No reflection on anyone in particular, of course, except to state my view of that person's doctrine. However, polygamy by most is indeed unrealistic, for few there be that find it. They take what could be a heaven, and turn it into Hades. So your girls' point is well taken.

desert darling said...

;)

Fredonia Friend said...

Barlow started several new threads over a week ago, but hasn't posted anything since. Barlow - are you here? Please tell us about yourself and about your motivation to "enlighten us" with your post that started this thread.

desert darling said...

I hope she didn't get caught and diciplined. Wouldn't that be a rude awakening for her?

Fredonia Friend said...

It's interesting that desert darling believes Barlow is a woman. I assumed Barlow was a man.

ATAR_i said...

me too, actually I assumed barlow and fundy shared the same DNA.

desert darling said...

I think she is a fairly free thinking woman and has been privy to many "manly" discussions so she can write as an flds man might, but she still doesn't have the "priesthood" flavor of a warrenite preaching.
She tries to convince, instead of telling us to believe.
Notice the difference from her and either fundy or street and an anon or two.
FTTC has become more liberated, but still is different than Barlow's method.