Divorce > Marriage?

[Angela Poynton]

Well I don't hide behind any wall of faith ... I personally don't follow any Religion. But I will edit you post, just a few words that prevent it from attacking personally some people who made read this thread. You will see that I will not have changed your argument in any way.
I didn't want this to get to this stage. I thought we were all good enough to keep the personal attacks away, can we not have anymore please.

[Simon Berman]

And by the way, David really hits the mark with his post. I don't understand how you don't see that as relevant to the central issue of supporting polygamy using your faith as the reason (ie. no real reason, just because you believe it).
If I said that I talked to God and He told me to do morally questionable things, how can you people that defend your arguments because you have faith in a particular thing move to criticise me?
There is little difference between using 'God told me to do it' as a justification whether it's writing books in the style of the King James Bible or using it as a justification to abuse children. How can you believe one and not the other? Both are crazier than a bag of hammers.
in my opinion, of course.

[Simon Berman]

Angela, why do you feel that you have to censor my post?

[Angela Poynton]

I just took out 6 words in all ... I don't think attacking a particular group of people is any less offensive than attacking an individual.
Yes this is meaningless drivel. But we still intend on keeping it friendly. This has been a really good discussion, I personally have learned a lot from it. I will not allow it to descend into a flame - war or an arguement about which religion is the "right" one or whether religion itself is right.
As I said I do not follow any particular doctrine.
i was raised by a Catholic family, went to Catholic schools, but in the end I made a choice not to choose that path for myself. I came to believe that ultimatly religion is about faith. Faith is unique to each individual, and what they choose to put their faith in is their own choice. They may be guided by others but in the end it is their own choice and I have the ultimate respect for the choice that anybody makes. Faith makes us strong, it is what keeps us going.

[Simon Berman]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
Faith is unique to each individual, and what they choose to put their faith in is their own choice. They may be guided by others but in the end it is their own choice and I have the ultimate respect for the choice that anybody makes. Faith makes us strong, it is what keeps us going.

Faith can also make us weak and be our undoing, and can also be our blindness. Do you respect the choice of the followers of Charles Manson or David Koresh? Do you think that they made a good choice? Wouldn't you have encouraged a bit more scepticism on their part before they made their choice?
Surely it is what you place your faith in that is important, rather than the fact that the individual has chosen it. I admit that because it is a personal choice you must respect that choice - but the most important thing is that you choose very carefully what you place your faith in. Because if you make a bad choice it could be very dangerous - ultimately your faith can make you or break you.
[This message has been edited by Simon Berman (edited June 01, 2001).]

[Anonymous]

Religion is the opiate of the people

[Tony Alicea]

What about then of lowering the legal marrying age for a woman to the moment she has her first menstruation?



After all, Nature is saying "you can procreate now..."

[Tony Alicea]

Karl Marx was an Idiot who passed off as an erudite scholar for a limited amount of time in history.
He single-handedly screwed the World for a limited amount of time. It took us Americans (The REAL Chosen People) some time to correct the mistakes that this idiot's ideas caused world-wide, but TRUTH prevailed.
Do I know about Communism? Yes I do. I was a Communist in my early University years in the 1960s.
But as the very intelligent person that I am, I correctly concluded that this ideology was simply �EQUIVOCADA! (wrong!)

[Tony Alicea]

I first read 'El Capital' in the Spanish language (do you have a problem with that or do you think it was originally written in the English language!?) when at the University.



As a young impressionable kid I bought into it.



Now I know it's very flawed.



Nevertheless some aspects of Capitalism suck and we (US citizens) should have them changed.

[Anonymous]

Simon, I agree with a few of the things you said. First of all, nobody should use religion as an excuse for irresponsible behavior. For example, I respect a person's right to not "believe in modern medicine" if they choose. But I think that when they take this belief to the point where they are willing to let their children die by not getting treatment for easily treatable conditions, they are acting in a criminally irresponsible fashion. So yes, religion is no excuse for bad behavior.
Secondly, nobody should ever profess that they believe a thing because they just do. I believe that people have a responsibility to questions the individual teachings of their respective faiths. If your faith can't take the heat, then it should get out of the kitchen. Mine has held up fine. How's yours?
On the other hand, once a person is convicted of their beliefs, however they arrive at their conclusions, we should not presume to know better because of our enlightened social consciences. There are countries where 14 is marrying age. Just because it isn't common in the US doesn't make it wrong. It's just not socially acceptable. The two are very different. There are TONS of things people do in other countries that are not wrong, but would never fly in our culture. Likewise, we do things that would go over like a fart in a church house in other countries.
Finally, quit calling this polygamous yahoo a Mormon. He isn't one. He may think he is, but the church is very clear on this point. The church's leadership has told its memebership that they should only have one wife. If anyone doesn't follow that council, they will not retain their membership in the church. I don't know who these "religious leaders" are that you refer to, but they are NOT the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Those leaders are not telling people to take many wives. This man is clearly confused about who he is following.

[Nathan Pruett]

Wow! News -> Marriage -> Religion -> Faith -> Marxism! What's next in this thread!

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to ignore most of Simon's post because it's starting to delve into "inflammatory" regions, as mentioned before... I'm not disagreeing with your right to expound the ideas you are presenting, but the way that you present them is not constructive...

But, here are some short answers to the two major questions you have asked :

1. Why do mormons have huge families? - Simply because they see no reason to limit the size of their families. The church does not encourage people to expand their families beyond their means to support them, however...


2. On the marrying a minor issue - The church does not encourage this behavior either...
   


One of the major problems here is that you are forgetting that Tom Green is not a member of the LDS church... he is a member of a group that has broken away from the church, and has broken several laws. I am not defending his behavior, I am simply defending my beliefs. He took some aspects of the belief that I hold, and took them to the extreme. This is like saying, "How can you be Christian... The crusades were evil and killed millions of people."

In another example of this kind, what about the Columbine shootings? The killers were basically described as "goths". The acts that they perpetrated were in no way were representative of the gothic lifestyle, yet schools suddenly began cracking down on black trench coats and other "gothic" clothing, and some police departments began describing "goths" as a gang. I may completely disagree with what the Columbine killers did, but I am not going to project this behavior onto an entire group of people to persecute them.

As far as the argument on faith, how we can prove it good or bad... I have found an answer... it may not be accepted by some of the people here because it comes from a religious source, but here goes...




16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



Matthew 7:16-20

Obviously, Tom Green's faith was misplaced...
I, however, have seen no "evil fruits" from the LDS church... so I feel that my faith is not.

-Nate
[This message has been edited by Nathan Pruett (edited June 04, 2001).]

[Thomas Paul]

Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin and no one prosecuted him.
As far as being able to support a big family, it appears that the children are well fed and dressed. Perhaps he doesn't have cable or AOL and perhaps the family doesn't put a lot of emphasis on worldy goods. My feeling is that people should be able to have whatever living arrangements they want. Whether it's a gay couple, or a bisexual threesome, or a polygamous marriage it should be up to the individuals to choose their own living arrangements without being threatened with 25 years in prison. None of the women were forced to marry this guy or were tricked into it. They could have left whenever they felt like it.

[Andrew Shafer]

ahh, so much fun, where to begin. . .
First, Marx. . .
You have to understand Marx's cultural context when refering to religion as the opiate of the masses. This reference when taken in context is meant to illustrate the pain-killing effect of religion, without the heavy emphasis to delusion that most ascribe to this quote. (Next time you hear someone use this "quote" from Marx, ask them to quote something else he said) These are modern projections of context.
Also, to call Marx an idiot is quite a stretch, regardless of your personal affinities. While I do not necessarily agree with his prescription, I have very little disagreement with his prognosis. Capitalism is generally bad and contradicts any idea of Democracy. I would love to have this discussion, but this is too great a deviation from this thread, for now.
Second, faith. . .
If you follow a purely logical positivistic view of yourself and the events of your perception, you can never know anything about causation. (If you are wondering what I'm talking about I would suggest reading Aristotle, then Descartes, then Berkley, Kant and finally Hume, have fun)
You can see patterns, but you can never really KNOW!
I would argue that the only possible route for true knowledge starts subconsciously and manifests as intuition, faith if you will. Since most modern people have very little experience listening to there own conscience, this becomes a very difficult process. Although apparently, there exists a strong desire among humans to experience truth. Unfortunately, this often leads to more confusion, manipulation and various other precarious situations.
This might also make a nice seperate thread.
Moving on, Polygamous marriage. . .
In the United States, at approximately the same time Joseph Smith was gathering followers, there were numerous other Christian sects that were born. (if anyone is interested, there are a number of books that talk about the time and place, usually referred to as the Burned-out Zone or something similar) Among these groups there were several variations of polygamy (polyandrous and polygynous)and open marriage.
Most of these groups died out and disappeared, usually as a result of the next generations failing to conform/convert with the ideas of their parents. (Although there are remnants, reseach the origins of the Oneida silver company for example)
That's mostly trivia, but illustrates the variations of polygamy have been lived in this country.
I would argue that from a purely biological and evolutionary perspective polygyny makes the most sense. (Although we can't KNOW this with certainty, obviously)
Consider most primates and other social mammals, within a social group, only the primary dominant male is able to breed.
This makes sense, assuming the dominance is due to some environmental advantage given by the fathers genetics. This system increases the chances of the environmental advantage being passed and expressed by the offspring.
Note, one male is capable of impregnating and generating offspring with each and every female. The reverse is not true. (although, I think some girls might be trying to prove me wrong here, bless their hearts)
Now humans beings are quite complicated mental creatures. Dominance is not quite so clear. There are many aspects of human interaction, physical, intellectual and emotional, and our choices of mates reflect this multi-faceted relation.
For myself, any discussion of morality concerning marrying age or polygamy is mostly self-righteous pomp deluded by current cultural context. Do I want to marry 14 year old girls? No, not especially, but I try to understand the context and refuse to condemn others who may do so.
Since I live in Utah, and have some degree of familiarity with the history and the culture, I can tell you with certainty that the prosecution of Tom Green is an arbitrary enforcement of statute, considering there are literally hundreds of other men living in nearly identical arrangements. He has been singled out as an example for whatever reason and I will be interested to see what the government and law enforcement will do now that he has been convicted.
Anyway, I think I have exceeded my 2 cent limit. . . again.
Andrew

[Anonymous]

Andrew, well spoken.
I remember driving to the ski slopes as a teenager and trying to guess which people in the fast-food restaurants of Colorado City were polygamists. Well, what else are you going to do while you eat your Big Mac?
[This message has been edited by Bodie Minster (edited June 04, 2001).]

[Shama Khan]

I hope no one takes any of what I am about to say in a wrong manner. In my religion, Islam, polygamy is allowed (up to 4 wives) with permission form the wife/wives. The man must provide equal time, money, and other necessities to each wife.
My personal feelings:
First of all, having been raised in the present times, I wouldn't grant permission and seek divorce if my husband doesn't listen. But if I was unable to have children and didn't want to adopt, I would rather my husband get a second wife than divorce me. I guess I am old fashioned and wouldn't agree with any other woman on the street carrying my husband's baby - even with artificial insemination. I've heard that in some cultures, women who are barren are kicked out by their husbands. polygamy would save these women from being abused and allow them to enjoy the elder wife status.
Second of all, I think very few men could be so fair minded. so if the majority of men (being humans) couldn't divide themselves equally for the wives, they would be committing sin by having more than one wife.
Thirdly, in a social sense, polygamy makes sense when due to a war - men have been killed off and many women left destitute. Rather than have these women become mistresses of married men, it's rather they're adopted into families as an additional wife. This action would cause her to regain her social status and sense of self. Her children would also now have a male guardian.
I say this because this is what happened with Prophet Muhammad, who married more than a few widows and divorce'es. The limit of 4 was made in his lifetime. But other biblical prophets also have had multiple wives.
Fourth point, it's is better to be able to allow multiple wives than multiple husbands because it's easier to figure out the identity of the father and therefore the lineage of the child because in most cultures, lineage is traced by men.
Fifth point is that in case no one here realizes, there are more women on earth than men. I'd rather that polygamy be allowed rather than have the adultery that seems to be have become such an acceptable part of our culture here in the U.S. In relation to Mayor Giuliani and Donna Hanover divorcing over the adultery business. No one seems to remember that Donna is his second wife and therefore must have had an affair with him when he was still married to his very catholic first wife. It's just another example of 'when you throw stones at other people's houses, you better be looking for a pay back.'
Shama

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited June 06, 2001).]

[Emerson Dunne]

Shama, your post was very interesting (as was Andrew's and many others too).
But regarding your post...
Why do you suppose the limit of 4 wives exists? Also, you mentioned the status of the elder wife; what special significance does the elder wife have as a role in the family?

[Shama Khan]

Originally posted by Emerson Dunne:

Why do you suppose the limit of 4 wives exists? Also, you mentioned the status of the elder wife; what special significance does the elder wife have as a role in the family?

Don't know why the limit was chosen to be 4. Will have to go look it up in some islamic history book.
Oh, the eldest wife is very important. In a way, she's the wise grand-mother figure. I would guess that she gets most respect because she has known the husband the longest and knows him better than everyone - and possibly is closest to him on some spiritual level. Also she's the eldest female around so she has a lot of wisdom to offer in terms of child rearing and so on.
I have read an anthropological book about a village in Iraq and it's from there that I got this impression. Hope that helps.

[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited June 06, 2001).]

[Simon Berman]

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:
[B]I believe that people have a responsibility to questions the individual teachings of their respective faiths. If your faith can't take the heat, then it should get out of the kitchen. Mine has held up fine. How's yours?[B]

What makes you think that I have a faith?
I try not to delude myself. That's all I can really tell you. I certainly wouldn't subscribe to any of the organised religions that people try to sell like a particular brand of washing powder, whether on TV or door-to door.
As for polygamy, I have enough trouble with one woman, let alone more than one. Still, if they're sedated with opiate that Karl speaks of (I re-use that quote purposefully out of context) I could understand how a man could have more than one.
And as for women breeding when nature dictates that they are able is looking at people in the same way as breeding animals. What amazes me is that people don't advocate a certain level of maturity (at least of mind) before a woman is allowed to set up in her trailer with whatever man pleases her to serially eject offspring. Perhaps the problem here is not one of age, but one of education, or lack of it. I would certainly hope that you would want the kids that are being born into the country to be educated to a good level, so isn't it a help if the mother is well educated - preferably to college level? Otherwise we seek to live in an expanding country of the ill-educated. You can call me a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
On a separate post, Thomas Paul, you are obviously a liberal through and through. With respect, to read between your lines, you say "let anyone do whatever as long as it's not hurting anyone". IMNSHO liberalism is a potential recipe for disaster.

[Andrew Shafer]

How blissfully myopic. . .
Look out, he has pulled out the liberal card.
Every self-labeled-conservative's favorite way to summarily dismiss another's opinion without concern for truth.
Must be hard to be against both religion AND liberals.
As I pointed out before, I guarantee there was some 14 year old girl who couldn't read who gave birth to your great-great-great. . .grandpa/ma.

[Simon Berman]

Originally posted by Andrew Shafer:
As I pointed out before, I guarantee there was some 14 year old girl who couldn't read who gave birth to your great-great-great. . .grandpa/ma.

Yes, I read that when you wrote it before. Since you feel that you must press the point, I don't know about you but some of us like to think that we are making progress in our society. I wouldn't like to live like many of my ancestors. No doubt you aspire to being like the most distant of your ancestors.
And where did you get the idea that I was conservative? In your mind the religious are on the right wing and the liberals are on the left. You assume a great deal.

[Andrew Shafer]

Oh Simon,

. . .but some of us like to think that we are making progress in our society.

like to think is the operative phrase.
Progress is as progress does. Sure, we traded our 20 hours-a-week agrarian lifestyle for 40+ hours of wage slavery so we can buy more shiny trinkets and the new Britney Spears album. (redundant is as redundant does) We also managed to progress to serial killers, school shootings and perhaps worst of all The Weakest Link tv game show. (games shows in general are bad, but this is the current pinnacle) Some really brilliant progressive guy thought feeding cows to cows would be a great idea and now we have mad cow disease, which we won't really know the effects of for another 20 years, especially in Southeast Asia. . . then there is the progress of pollution. . .
I don't want to go on ad nauseum (ok, maybe I do, but there are other things I should do today)

I wouldn't like to live like many of my ancestors.

Maybe not all my ancestors, but I wouldn't like to live like many of my neighbors.

No doubt you aspire to being like the most distant of your ancestors.

How my ancestors lived I don't find particularly disturbing. I'm most concerned with how my children will live with all this progress.

And where did you get the idea that I was conservative?

I made no allusion that you were or were not conservative; I simply made an observation about the common use for the label of LIBERAL which YOU were putting on someone else.
I did not attempt to label you in any way.

In your mind the religious are on the right wing and the liberals are on the left.

Uhhhm, in your labeling mind, without any mention of left or right from me (or up and down for that matter), what little box would you stick the religious and in which box do you stick the liberal? I believe the general concensus would be religious on the right and liberals on the left. I didn't make up these silly labels. Also, don't pretend that you have a clue what goes on in my mind.
I was simply amused that someone was arguing against religion and then against liberals. Which is fine by me, argue against or in favor of whatever you like.

You assume a great deal.

True, true, sadly. . . I'm really working on it. . .
Certainly the same could be said about your statements.
Quick, Simon, without going to your favorite search engine, what is your second favorite Marx quote?

[Anonymous]

Children, children... fight nicely.