Monday, July 24, 2006

Women in Polygamy

One of the problems is the untruths and misconceptions that form our popular cultural idea of what polygamy is. I have not found that women are exploited or subjugated. Rather the opposite is true. Women achieve more freedom and expanded horizons than in monogamy. Why? There are two or more to share the housework, the cooking, the childcare, freeing each one to have more time to herself to pursue independent goals and objectives. Women are as free as they choose to speak their minds. If women are kept silent, that is the problem of the individuals involved, women as well as men, not the form of marriage. Exploitation and subjugation may occur in some situations, but that also occurs in monogamous marriages. The form of marriage is not the problem - the individuals involved in the marriage and their attitudes are the problem. A polygamous marriage based on Biblical truths and precepts, as all marriages should be, should meet the same standards as any monogamous marriage. Husbands should love their wives, and wives should be submissive to their husbands, based on Biblical principles.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barlow
Is the scripture from the Book of Mormon more important to you than the Bible?

Is the scripture from the Book of Mormon more important or less than the Doctrine and Covenant?

Anonymous said...

One question:

I have heard that you Short-Crickers prefer the term "plural marriage" to "polygamy".

Is that true?

If so, what is the difference between the two?


One more question, if I may:

What is the relationship between the sister-wives? Do they consider themselves to be married to each other, or are they simply married to the same man?

ATAR_i said...

Polyamy in the Bible wasn't a spiritual experience - it was one of necessity. Men took on extra wives - say their brother died, they took on his wife because otherwise there would have been no one to look after her and her children.

Many societies have found the idea of multiple wives or concubines to be quite enticing for reasons quite unspiritual.

I personally think it was used during a period of time out of necessity, but it is NOT optimal, and was never in the Bible encouraged as THE lifestyle to live.

You won't have trouble convincing men to sleep with lots of women. Take any man off the street and ask him if he'd like to have a few other women to sleep with and chances are he'd be game.

Ask a random woman off the street if she'd like her husband to sleep with, and have babies with, a few other women and you won't get the same response.

Add to that the alure of popping out a baby every year, dressing like the turn of the century, never wearing make up, letting your uterus fall onto your bladder so you constantly leak urine.

Women just kill for a life surrounded by 60 children with a leaky bladder smothered in their own clothing, watching their husband sleep with other women (sarcasm) who could want anything more?

barlow said...

Firstly, for the women who have experienced this principle with righteous men there is no other principle they would rather live. Secondly, promiscuous men will be utterly repelled by the responsibilities that polygamy demands of them and would rather be Cassanovas wandering from one woman's bed to another without any sort of committment.

unrestrained said...

Barlow, are you a woman?????

Anonymous said...

Heard a Rumor
Dedication of 1953 Raid Monument
Bountiful, British Columbia
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Time: 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time
Winston Blackmore officiating.

ATAR_i said...

I don't believe you speak for all women, not even a small group of women, FLDS or no.

Just because they make the best of it, and wrap their arms around it, doesn't mean it is the deepest desire of their heart, the way they wish it could be.

I think if your women were given another choice for going to heaven than being hog tied to polygamy for their very salvation, you would find there would be women who would choose NOT to practice it. And, as long as there was no judgement (she's better because she's polygamous) I think you'd see that number steadily increase until polygamous marriages represented the smallest group of FLDS marriages.

Honestly, I think your men are promiscuous. Anyone with 7,10, 25, 45, 78 wives is a man whore (since we're not mincing words here).

muggsey said...

RIGHTEOUS - - - - HA! more like self righteous boors.

Anonymous said...

Heard a different rumor.
The monument dedication will be in Colorado City...

Anonymous said...

Heard a Rumor-Change the Rumor
Dedication of 1953 Raid Monument
Colorado City, Arizona
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Time: 9:30 a.m. Mountain Time?
Winston Blackmore officiating.

ATAR_i said...

OK - I think there should be a live chat feature - because on a night - like tonight, it would be fun.

TBM said...

Muggsey's head would probably explode with righteous indignation! :-)

Barlow, can I ask you a question in respect and sincerity? How many plural wives are converts to the FLDS? How well do you think a woman from a monogamist background and society would fit into a plural marriage?

Also, how do you get around the shortage of women? If everybody's marrying two or more wives, it stands to reason that you're going to run out of women pretty rapidly.

I know recently a lot of young FLDS men were excommunicated and forced out of the community, and a lot of people have said this was to reduce the competition for the available women. But if that is true, it's at best a short term measure.

muggsey said...

Just because you are for polygamy and I am against it doesn't mean anything except that the law of the land prohibits it. If your multiple wives receive sustinance from the U.S. Government, provided by we taxpayers, and that little bit of hypocracy causes my family to be deprived of anything, I have a right to be indignant. I nor most other Americans didn't take you or your plural wives or your children on to raise.

TBM said...

Muggsey, isn't it awfully hard work being so outraged all the time?

Anonymous said...

One more question, if I may:
What is the relationship between the sister-wives? Do they consider themselves to be married to each other, or are they simply married to the same man? 7/24/2006 5:30 PM

Men to men, women to women, men to women, women to men, men to children, children to men, children to women, women to children. The sealings in the true church are universal, and interlinking, like the Tree of Life, with paths of light connecting ever-which-way. A vine travels ever-which-way, and the flaming sword hither and thither. You cannot put limits on God, or on His people, without deadly consequences, for God is a God of battle.

muggsey said...

No, it's very easy when you know you're opposing Satan and his dominion. I'm not in the least upset but, I seem to be able to get you folks boiling mad with little effort on my part. Better go buy yourself a pop-valve.

TBM said...

Muggsey, you don't boil me at all. You make me laugh quite a lot. You're actually one of the biggest reasons I keep coming back!

Please don't ever leave this board. I'd be so disappointed.

ATAR_i said...

I'm glad to hear you say that tbm. I've had an fine time on this board, enjoying discussions with people I disagree with, yet have great respect for.

onthestreet said...

TARRY Said (7/24/2006 8:34 PM):
Honestly, I think your men are promiscuous. Anyone with 7,10, 25, 45, 78 wives is a man whore (since we're not mincing words here).

STREET’s Reply. All of Christianity believe that all of Christ’s church are His brides, a man with not just 7, 10, 25, 45, or 78 wives, but MILLIONS. Christ your Lord, A MAN WHORE???

Poor, Poor Tar!!!

muggsey said...

tbm

the exchanges are at least interesting. I have to think a little more to answer you and fttc than I have to to counter ots or fundy. It keeps me sharper than I had to be, so go ahead, pop my cork, if you can. I'll bet I've a lot more information to draw from than you do to prove my points. I don't believe a thing the mormons have said. Not a verse from BOM, not a section of D&C and certainly not a single quote from Pearl. All is a myth, built upon a lie propped up by showmanship, delivered to an ignorant people.

If it isn't in the Bible it simply isn't true. At least not for purpose of salvation of mankind.

No Reformed Egyptian, no seer stones, no archilogical artifacts, nothing adhering Mormon to Ancient Israel, no boats without sails, rudders, keels, oars or magnetic compass, without means to steer or having any knowledge of the various streams in the oceans, what good would a compass do?

Noah's ark had neither sails, rudder nor keel. He and his family, plus all the creatures with him were sealed in the ark for approximately one year.
Their travel from the vacinity of the Euphrates valley to the mountains of Arrarat was approximately 500 - 750 miles.

Where along the Arabian coast did those fleeing Jerusalem find lumber to build their boats? how long did it take for them to build the boats, sail to Diego Garcia, where did they take on water?, food? Did they stop over on Ceylon or Tasmania? These questions are un-ending and have no acceptable answer because there is only heresay, not documented proof, artifax, maps, names of the principal parties do not appear anywhere in the Bible. Surely, if their departure was of such great importance Jeremiah, the Prophet of God would have noted something of interest in his writings. If not he Barruch, the scribe would have made some record. The Babylonians who were closing in on all sides of Jerusalem would have noted a successful escape of the family.

desert darling said...

I was taught that the relationship between wives was that of sisters. Each wife being married to the man, and sex not even being discussed outside of the relationship of the man with each wife.

If there were sexual relations between wives, that would be no different than being lesbians, which the FLDS is expressly against.

ATAR_i said...

OTS,

Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. That means men are 'brides too'. But that doesn't mean Christ is a homosexual - it's a metaphor - so don't sexualize it.

I stand by man 'man whore' comment. I think a man collecting women is obscene, and the man is a pervert taking advantage of an opportunity.

Anonymous said...

desert darling said...

I was taught that the relationship between wives was that of sisters. Each wife being married to the man, and sex not even being discussed outside of the relationship of the man with each wife.

In the "real world" women who are close friends consider themselves as "sisters" and sometimes as "sorority sisers".

Believe me, these women talk among themselves about many aspects of their lives, including life's challenges, life's goals and relationships with men.

I find it sad that the women - especially the "sister wives" in polygamy don't - OR CAN'T - speak about personal things with their "girlfriends".

I see this as controlling that they can't swap tales and giggle about guys.

But, why should I be surprised?

Polygamy is all about control and letting women talk and laugh about their mates would allow them to THINK and that would destroy the CONTROL factor.

So sad....

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (7/27/2006 8:40 PM): OTS, Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. That means men are 'brides too'. But that doesn't mean Christ is a homosexual - it's a metaphor - so don't sexualize it.

I stand by man 'man whore' comment. I think a man collecting women is obscene, and the man is a pervert taking advantage of an opportunity.


STREET’s Reply: You say “Christ’s reference to himself as the bridegroom is a metaphor”, not real, just a joke, a lie, to tease and to deceive. Is that really the Christ that you claim to worship? Or would his being the bridegroom be real and literal. See, He proclaims Himself the bridegroom to all His faithful millions in the history of the world, although in each generation “few there be that find it”.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said (7/27/2006 8:40 PM): OTS, Jesus is the bridegroom and the church is the bride. That means men are 'brides too'. But that doesn't mean Christ is a homosexual - it's a metaphor - so don't sexualize it.

I stand by man 'man whore' comment. I think a man collecting women is obscene, and the man is a pervert taking advantage of an opportunity.


STREET Reply: You say that Jesus’s reference to Himself as the bridegroom to the millions of His faithful in the history of the world “is only a metaphor”, not real, a joke, a lie. Is that really how you feel about the Redeemer of the World? You both sexualize it and crucify it when you relate His spiritual sealing with His faithful brethren and sisters as “homosexual”. Therefore you are calling Christ a “man whore”. Every true Christian can see the folly of your views.

ATAR_i said...

Your weird and you don't make sense.

It's a figure of speech (a metaphor), not ajoke and not a lie.

I myself, unlike you, do not like to ad and detract from the scriptures at my whim.

Statement ONE

Men who marry multiple women are 'man whores' because they sleep with dozens of women.

Statement TWO (completely different topic, different everything than statement one).

Christ is the bridgroom (metaphor) the church is the bride (metaphor). Your the one who sexualized the metaphor and made it a statement of Christs sexual status (i.e. he sleeps with his brides). I merely pointed out that you were incorrect because in this instance his 'bride' is the church, which consists of both MALES and females.

Basically I tossed your argument into the water and it disintegrated (like chum to sharks). And you get all pissy about it, like an adolescent boy whose gotten his ego out of sorts cuz a girl beat him.

ots <-------chum
atar <------shark

ATAR_i said...

I'm sorry street, that is not a correct interpretation of that verse. And, I seriously doubt even warren would take such a ridiculous stance on that scripture.

BTW - swearing at women (calling them bastards), even gentile women, is still sinful.

Unless of course you believe in the Koran, where it's ok to treat those who don't believe like you hideously. The Bible of course takes a different route (love those who hate you...bless those who curse you).

Are you muslim? You really sound muslim.

TBM said...

Atar_i, if you don't like vermin, don't feed the rats!

I can tell you're upset by Street, and with good reason! But that's exactly what he planned, and you got sucked right in to his bait. Nobody is more thrilled by your response than he is right now.

ATAR_i said...

We all have our vices - you like fundy, he he he.

onthestreet said...

TAR Said (8/01/2006 8:40 PM):
BTW - swearing at women (calling them bastards), even gentile women, is still sinful.


STREET's Reply: Are Christ and His Prophets also sinful in calling outsiders DOGS, and BASTARDS? They do that very thing (Hebrews 12:8).

By the way, I love you. Yet, "These six things doth the Lord HATE, yea seven are an abomination in His sight".

ATAR_i said...

OK, Christ isn't sinful.