Sister Wife: The film
Among the films previewing at the Sundance Film Festival is a 11-minute short called ''Sister Wife.'' Here is the festival blurb about it.
I spoke with DoriAnn, the subject of the film and a resident of Centennial Park, about why she agreed to participate and the film's message. She asked that I not use her last name.
The hope is the short is intriguing enough to draw funding for a full-length documentary. The mini-film shows DoriAnn preparing for and entering her daily bath, a ''re-birthing practicing connected breathing, releasing emotional energy.''
DoriAnn, 41 and the mother of 12, told me she met director Jill Orschel in 2005 at a self-improvement workshop. Jill lives in Park City and has made two documentaries, one about becoming a parent called ''The Places You'll Go'' and another called ''Lakota Workcamp,'' about teenagers on a reservation involved in a community project.
''We really connected immediately,'' she said. Initially, Jill had no idea DoriAnn was a plural wife. But soon she proposed doing a film about DoriAnn's life.
DoriAnn said it took several years for her to feel comfortable enough to agree to work with Jill on a film. She did everything she could to get another family for Jill, but in the end DoriAnn agreed.
DoriAnn said her husband and sister wife, her younger sister, do not want anything to do with the project but support her participation.
The preview explores the ''dualities between the shadow sides and enlightened sides" of her life, DoriAnn said. It is not so much about plural marriage as it is about life, she said.
"I would love to share more about the empowerment I discovered in a quest to know myself and others consciously and the effects of our human conditioning," she told me in an email. "My intention is to be an example of loving compassion for the human experience, while learning the Art of Receiving and Giving Love Authentically, practicing being Soulkeepers with ourselves, our beloveds, our children, our friends, our community and our world."
She has seen the film and said it was hard to watch because "it expresses so intensely human emotion.''
"This film is about honoring my culture, honoring other people's culture, about learning we don't have to be a threat to one another so we can live in a you-and-me world."
DoriAnn was born and raised in Colorado City, Ariz. When she was 15, her parents moved to Nevada. Family troubles resulted in her being placed in state custody for a time. At 16, she ran away from home and hitchhiked back to Colorado City.
''All I could think about was I had to get back to where it was safe," she said.
She eventually went to live with relatives in Mexico. DoriAnn married at 16 and had eight children with her first husband before their marriage ended in divorce.
She entered plural marriage about nine years ago.
''My reason for choosing plural marriage is the ability to love other women as much as I love myself and to love another woman's children as much as I love my own," she said. Plural marriage allows her to "love big, bigger than any other experience could teach me. To love and not have to have ownership of love, ownership of another human being."
What is the reaction to the film?
Mary Batchelor, a co-founder of Principle Voices, saw it the other night and said it was ''powerful.''
"Not very many women in plural marriage are willing to go that public with those feelings," Batchelor said. "I was very impressed with her courage in doing that. It was very real and brutally honest.
"I felt it was at once painful and hard to watch but at the same time awe-inspiring and powerful," she said.
The imagery is of coming clean, a disrobing of self as vulnerable and washing away painful feelings, Batchelor said.
I spoke with DoriAnn, the subject of the film and a resident of Centennial Park, about why she agreed to participate and the film's message. She asked that I not use her last name.
The hope is the short is intriguing enough to draw funding for a full-length documentary. The mini-film shows DoriAnn preparing for and entering her daily bath, a ''re-birthing practicing connected breathing, releasing emotional energy.''
DoriAnn, 41 and the mother of 12, told me she met director Jill Orschel in 2005 at a self-improvement workshop. Jill lives in Park City and has made two documentaries, one about becoming a parent called ''The Places You'll Go'' and another called ''Lakota Workcamp,'' about teenagers on a reservation involved in a community project.
''We really connected immediately,'' she said. Initially, Jill had no idea DoriAnn was a plural wife. But soon she proposed doing a film about DoriAnn's life.
DoriAnn said it took several years for her to feel comfortable enough to agree to work with Jill on a film. She did everything she could to get another family for Jill, but in the end DoriAnn agreed.
DoriAnn said her husband and sister wife, her younger sister, do not want anything to do with the project but support her participation.
The preview explores the ''dualities between the shadow sides and enlightened sides" of her life, DoriAnn said. It is not so much about plural marriage as it is about life, she said.
"I would love to share more about the empowerment I discovered in a quest to know myself and others consciously and the effects of our human conditioning," she told me in an email. "My intention is to be an example of loving compassion for the human experience, while learning the Art of Receiving and Giving Love Authentically, practicing being Soulkeepers with ourselves, our beloveds, our children, our friends, our community and our world."
She has seen the film and said it was hard to watch because "it expresses so intensely human emotion.''
"This film is about honoring my culture, honoring other people's culture, about learning we don't have to be a threat to one another so we can live in a you-and-me world."
DoriAnn was born and raised in Colorado City, Ariz. When she was 15, her parents moved to Nevada. Family troubles resulted in her being placed in state custody for a time. At 16, she ran away from home and hitchhiked back to Colorado City.
''All I could think about was I had to get back to where it was safe," she said.
She eventually went to live with relatives in Mexico. DoriAnn married at 16 and had eight children with her first husband before their marriage ended in divorce.
She entered plural marriage about nine years ago.
''My reason for choosing plural marriage is the ability to love other women as much as I love myself and to love another woman's children as much as I love my own," she said. Plural marriage allows her to "love big, bigger than any other experience could teach me. To love and not have to have ownership of love, ownership of another human being."
What is the reaction to the film?
Mary Batchelor, a co-founder of Principle Voices, saw it the other night and said it was ''powerful.''
"Not very many women in plural marriage are willing to go that public with those feelings," Batchelor said. "I was very impressed with her courage in doing that. It was very real and brutally honest.
"I felt it was at once painful and hard to watch but at the same time awe-inspiring and powerful," she said.
The imagery is of coming clean, a disrobing of self as vulnerable and washing away painful feelings, Batchelor said.
93 Comments:
The ex-non-member book/film sellers may have thought the raid would benefit their whining objectives, but it appears to be progressing the other direction.
Sister Wife: The Film: "The imagery is of coming clean, a disrobing of self as vulnerable and washing away painful feelings, Batchelor said". The same principle applies to the entire FLDS faithful, if you can apply it correctly, of “disrobing of the selfishness and self-centeredness, and washing away the pains of evil, and be meek and vulnerable to whatever doubt and persecution that righteous living produces. An example of this was given in a thread last week about Donald Richter, and the doubts and criticisms of his presentation. I’ve put quite a bit into this article to show the difference between the imagery of a film, how it can be misconstrued, and the actual principles involved in the FLDS faith. So because of its length, I’ve divided it into two parts:
THE MEEK SHALL BE EXALTED
(And the exalted shall be cast down)
Luke 3:5, 14:11:
PART 1
Mr. Richter’s presentation was honorably and professionally done, by proper standards, not by worldly standards, for who is the standard-bearer? We are not in the popularity or public-relations business, but rather in the population business to populate the earth with souls that are honest, trustworthy, and of good report among the innocent (Phil.4:8), and for the sake of heavenly relations. If you consider us awkward or not as smooth as a poisonous snake, but evil, this fulfills the Lord’s word: “My people shall be both evil and good spoken of”
If his presentation seems to the ignorant as poor and halted, “Bring hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind…that my House may be filled. For I say unto you, that none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my Supper…If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, wife and children, brethren and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:21-27). “The poor ye have always, and whensoever ye will, ye may do them good, but me ye have not always”, saith the Lord (Mk.14:7). Do you think you hurt us in seeking our hurt or blaspheming our name, or the effort we make among you to set forth the truth? “All who seek thy hurt shall tremble and fall at His wrath” (Jer.10:10, Ps.71:13).
The FLDS are few, and have been separated from their brethren of the Mormon Church, which are many (even millions upon millions today), and have long since reproached and cast out the FLDS people as evil. “Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake” (Luke 6:22).
“Many shall come in my name (Millions of the Church of Jesus Christ: LDS). Go ye not after them” (Luke 21:8). Broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and MANY there be which go in thereat” (Matt.7:13). But my people shall be few which abideth in my name (my foundation or Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ), a few who also “come in my name”, which is Jesus Christ. “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone (through legal trials), a precious corner stone (precious and beautiful FLDS families), a sure foundation (Yacad: Covenant Seed, a Millenial beginning, not some church that fills the earth beyond foundation or fundamentals). He that believeth shall not make haste” (Chuwsh: Eager with excitement or enjoyment, to mingle with the world and to fill it up): Is.28:16.
THE MEEK SHALL BE EXALTED
(And the exalted shall be cast down)
Luke 3:5, 14:11:
PART 2
The true saint, fearing God and His law, not the world, is tried of the world, and is patient before their God. “Bring forth fruit with patience” (Hupomone: Cheerful endurance): Luke 8:15. “In your patience, possess your souls” (Luke 21:19), vs selling your souls for a mess of pottage, for world favor and gain. If you seek the captivity and the genocide of another church and of other peoples, in political and economic collapse, “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity, and he that killeth shall be killed”. These are the crimes of the latter-day beast, in the mass abortion and raid and genocide of others, crimes against humanity that are far worse than the doings of any “criminal” who rests within your prisons. “Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. And I beheld the beast” (Rev.13:10-11).
If any worship (or accept) the beast and his IMAGE (Gazar: A resemblance, profile, and acceptance of his law, decree, or executive order), and receive his MARK (Cuwk: His nod, vote, or appointment to office, his stamp or badge or servitude), the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God…forever and ever, and they shall have no rest day or night who worship the beast” (Rev.14:11-12). To WORSHIP that beast or nation, is Makiy: “To pine away with you, in (economic) craving, coveting, and dwindling, to kiss like a dog licking his master’s hand, to fawn or crouch unto, and prostrate in homage to his law, and reverence him” (end-quote). These definitions (for the above words noted in caps) come directly from the original language.
The BEAST is Chily: The perverted which have changed or perverted the laws and morals of the nation, which force and bring forth as prey (like a beast does for the kill), to drive, to grievously fall upon (or to raid), to wound (like the YFZ and Shortcreek communities have been wounded in a beastly manner). All who commit these crimes against humanity: “The smoke of their torment shall ascend up forever and ever. Here is the patience of the saints” (Rev.14:11-12).
If Mr. Richter or his brethren do not resemble your image of popularity and acceptance, the deceptive PR smoothness of a snake, or the professionalism of corrupt politicians, or the attraction of a harlot who sold herself for statehood, for a stately stance, there is a most profound reason for that. His brother David is also a great teacher of mathematics or exactness, of strictness and meekness, not the smooth and cocky seeker of public relations, or of compromise and diversion by legal intrigue. He and his brethren even went to war for you, and have suffered for it ever since, that we might be free. Yet you mock them and cast them out for their innocence, they not being of your image and your violence, or of your mark of servitude, like unto the beast of these latter days, “that teach for doctrines the commandments of men”, (Matt.15:9).
“Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. These are they who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” (Rev.14:12).
Street
When is it the man's turn to learn to be unselfish?
Interesting quote of the day:
From Reynolds vs. US in 1878:
"Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy."
If you're a patriarchal despot, you don't really need to learn to be unselfish.
Betty...Women can't have a harem of husbands, of course. God apparently doesn't want women to exploit men. He just wants men to exploit women.
"When is it the man's turn to learn to be unselfish?"
Haven't you been reading this blog? They ARE unselfish! It's HARD WORK being the husband to multiple wives. They give EVERYTHING to their wives. (Well, everything that they haven't first given to the church...)
"Betty...Women can't have a harem of husbands, of course. God apparently doesn't want women to exploit men. He just wants men to exploit women."
I don't know. Quite a few of Joseph's early "wives" were already married -- and they never divorced or left their husbands that I could see. Apparently women can handle at least two husbands in Mormondom. (At least by Joseph Smith's reckoning.)
"When is it the man's turn to learn to be unselfish?"
My friends that have more than one wife don't spend money on golf, fishing, 4-wheelers, etc. like most monogamous men. Their support for their families is the very picture of unselfishness. No one "exploits" anyone else.
"Quite a few of Joseph's early "wives" were already married -- and they never divorced or left their husbands that I could see."
Nor should they. They didn't live with him and there is no evidence that the relationships were ever consumated. Brother Joseph's wives were sealed to the prophet for the afterlife, not for this one.
At 16, she ran away from home and hitchhiked back to Colorado City.
''All I could think about was I had to get back to where it was safe," she said.
WOW! That's powerful! I don't think the femi-nutz like Laurie, Flora, etc. are going to like that!
Where's moonaroo? She needs to put carolyns book down long enough to consider DoriAnn's story!
"Nor should they. They didn't live with him and there is no evidence that the relationships were ever consumated. Brother Joseph's wives were sealed to the prophet for the afterlife, not for this one."
Right, dream on...
Mary Elizabeth Rollins, already married to non-Mormon Adam Lightner since 11 August 1835, was one of the first women to accept a polyandrous proposal from Joseph Smith. "He was commanded to take me for a wife," she wrote in a 21 November 1880 letter to Emmeline B. Wells. "I was his, before I came here," she added in an 8 February 1902 statement. Brigham Young secretly sealed the two in February 1842 when Mary was eight months pregnant with her son George Algernon Lightner. She lived with her real husband Adam Lightner until his death in Utah many years later. In her 1880 letter to Emmeline B. Wells, Mary explained: "I could tell you why I stayed with Mr. Lightner. Things the leaders of the Church do not know anything about. I did just as Joseph told me to do, as he knew what troubles I would have to contend with." She added on 23 January 1892 in a letter to John R. Young: "I could explain some things in regard to my living with Mr. L[ightner] after becoming the Wife of Another (Joseph Smith), which would throw light, on what now seems mysterious--and you would be perfectly satisfied with me. I write this; because I have heard that it had been commented on to my injury"
(Lightner, Mary E. Statement. 8 Feb. 1902; Lightner to Emmeline B. Wells, 21 Nov. 1880; Lightner to John R. Young, 25 Jan. 1892. George A. Smith Papers. Special Collections. University of Utah)
Orson Hyde's Wife, Marinda
Marinda Nancy Johnson, sister of Apostles Luke and Lyman Johnson, married Orson Hyde in 1834. A year before Hyde returned from Jerusalem in 1843, Marinda was sealed to Joseph Smith in April of 1842, though she lived with Orson until their divorce in 1870. Many suspect Joseph Smith was the actual father of Marinda's son Frank Henry who was born on 23 Jan 1845, for two reasons. First, because Marinda had been the polygamous wife of Smith since Apr 1842. Second, because Smith had sent her first husband, Orson Hyde, on a mission to Washington on April 4, 1844 "immediately" after a meeting with Joseph Smith (History of the Church, pg. 286). The gestation period for a human is on average 266 days (not 9 months), which would date the conception to early May 1844. Of course, 266 is an average date and the figures vary. To give you an idea of the range, only four percent of pregnancies are actually carried two weeks or more beyond the average time (Guttmacher, 1983). Frank Henry was born on January 23, 1845. Orson Hyde left for Washington April 4, 1844. The difference in these two dates is 294 days! That is almost a month longer than expected and is basically physiologically impossible, especially considering that Orson Hyde had not returned to Nauvoo until August 6, 1844.
(Andrew Jenson, Church Chronology, August 6, 1844) Marinda later divorced Orson Hyde and voiced her disgust of polygamy.
Windsor Lyon's Wife, Sylvia
Sylvia P. Sessions, married to Windsor P. Lyon, gave birth to a daughter on 8 February 1844, less than five months before Joseph Smith's martyrdom. That daughter, Josephine, related in a 24 February 1915 statement that prior to her mother's death in 1882 "she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and all others but which she now desired to communicate to me." Josephine's mother told her she was "the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church."
(Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
There's more but I don't want to hijack Brooke's Blog
"WOW! That's powerful! I don't think the femi-nutz like Laurie, Flora, etc. are going to like that!"
You just keep spreading that female respecting sweetness there, Cheese. I'm sure every strong woman who reads it is terribly impressed with how insecure you are made by them.
Rebeckah said: "I'm sure every strong woman who reads it is terribly impressed with how insecure you are made by them."
I specifically mention them. I'm not infering that all women are in that category. I have no problem with strong women. I could introduce you to a few.
Rebeckah said: "Many suspect Joseph Smith was the actual father of Marinda's son Frank Henry who was born on 23 Jan 1845,....."
Many suspect? Would that be a panel of 12? Or are you just quoting what somebody said that somebody said?
We've all heard the accusations and read the rebuttals....the evidence is sketchy at best. If that evidence were brought into a court of law it would be laughed out.
I don't understand, however, how a man who gives up the potential added income, free time, and toys that come with a monogamous relationship to take care of more than one family can be considered "selfish". Nor do I understand how women who choose to raise families that don't stoop to secular values are "exploited".
"Apparently women can handle at least two husbands in Mormondom. (At least by Joseph Smith's reckoning.)"
Making crude remarks toward sacred rites that you may not understand is ugly. Why do those that lack the intestinal fortitude and faith to live higher laws use their time condemning those choose to live them?
"I specifically mention them. I'm not infering that all women are in that category. I have no problem with strong women. I could introduce you to a few."
Your use of the word "femnazi" is all the proof I need that you don't truly know any strong women. If you did they would have taught you a more respectful way to disagree than vicious name calling.
"We've all heard the accusations and read the rebuttals....the evidence is sketchy at best. If that evidence were brought into a court of law it would be laughed out."
Here's an idea, lets do some DNA testing and prove it once and for all. I'm sure willing to put my money where my conviction is.
"Making crude remarks toward sacred rites that you may not understand is ugly. Why do those that lack the intestinal fortitude and faith to live higher laws use their time condemning those choose to live them?"
It is crude to point out that Joseph Smith "married" already married women, but not crude for you to try and cast aspirations on my belief that the only "higher" law there is from God about marriage is that it should involve consenting adults? Hmmm, interesting value system you show.
Last time I checked, looking into the truth wasn't "crude" and was considered to be a virtue by most religions.
>Blogger Betty said...
> When is it the man's turn to learn to be unselfish?
Mark Twain answers that below:
"the Mormon women ... these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures ... the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure - and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence." Roughing It by Mark Twain
Ron in Houston said...
> Interesting quote of the day:
> From Reynolds vs. US in 1878:
> "Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy."
> If you're a patriarchal despot, you don't really need to learn to be unselfish.
Response: From Hansen vs. US in 2008:
"Professor, Hesser says, monogamy leads to the matriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with polygamy."
If you're a matriarchal despot, you don't really need to learn to be unselfish.
went to school with her..always wondered what happened to her
I suppose, CHansen1118, equality is out of the question? Some people really find that satisfying. Some, like Regina has said she is, like to have a matriarchal despot and there are plenty who like to have a patriachal despot system too. If it works for them, yay. Just don't try to push it off on me.
Rebeckah said:
"If it works for them, yay. Just don't try to push it off on me."
Response: Yet, you are pushing your philosophies and laws off on Mormon Fundamentalists.
"Response: Yet, you are pushing your philosophies and laws off on Mormon Fundamentalists."
The laws were there first. The Mormons want to ignore them. Personally, I don't care WHO or HOW MANY they marry, as long as it doesn't involve children. And yes, I'll push that until my dying breath.
Bruce,
"I don't understand, however, how a man who gives up the potential added income, free time, and toys that come with a monogamous relationship to take care of more than one family can be considered "selfish"."
That's easy. Since they can't be true to one woman, which is what Joseph Smith promised Emma he'd do when he married her, then they're being selfish. The truth is simple, MOST women you talk to do not want to share their man with another woman. There are some who will choose it without religious indoctrination, but not many. Frankly, if it was as "natural" as so many of you men want to pretend it is, Joseph Smith wouldn't have had to have a revelation threatening Emma with utter distruction before she'd accept it, would he? It is SELFISH to demand more than one woman at a time -- whether you have spiritually married her or are simply having an adulterous affair. (At least it is the the culture of greater America, where you currently reside.)
This post has been removed by the author.
I don't care WHO or HOW MANY they marry, as long as it doesn't involve children.
And I suppose Rebekah, like CPS, deems a 37 year old FLDS woman a "child."
It is SELFISH to demand more than one woman at a time -- whether you have spiritually married her or are simply having an adulterous affair.
I thought you just said you don't care who or how many a man marries as long as it's not with children, but now you're lecturing on general marital improprieties. At least be consistent.
"It is SELFISH to demand more than one woman at a time"
......... oh, never mind.
O)
Good grief
pass the pickles and icecream:))
Rebekah,
RFLMAO. Yup, what a sacrifice it is to get a new sex toy every couple of years and then get the older, less interesting sex toys to pay for it all. Boy, they have you hook, line and sinker.
Rebekah wrote "I'm sure every strong woman who reads it is terribly impressed with how insecure you are made by them."
Well, I got to give you snaps for that one.
OK, reading further, I am beginning to think I mistook what Rebekah was saying - may have been sarcasm, can't tell.
Bruce in Montana,
When the man has to keep sweet while his wife kisses and hugs someone else right in front of him, then you can talk. In the meantime, go golfing once in a while, it might clear your head.
In a way, Rebekah, I don't mind how many they have, either. I mind very much the pretense that by so doing they are serving God and doing the women some big favor to drop by now and then.
Betty,
I agree with you too, but if the woman is an adult and has choosen it then I figure there isn't much I can say. Just like if a woman is an adult and chooses to stay with a man who beats her bloody on a regular basis. I can feel very sorry for her, and let here know I'm there for her if she's ever willing to be her own person, but it isn't my business otherwise. However I think it is important to speak out vigorously about the practice of locking teen girls into this lifestyle, particularly if they are younger than the law allows to marry or shack up with men 15 and 20 years their senior.
Rebeckah said: "That's easy. Since they can't be true to one woman, which is what Joseph Smith promised Emma he'd do when he married her,...."
How do you have even one clue about what he promised her? How do you know what she promised him?
Cheese,
Because I looked up the common vows for that time. Also, if Emma was so keen on "Celestial Marriage" then why did "God" have to threaten her with eternal destruction? Please, Cheese, put yourself in a woman's shoes for just a moment and TRY to remember that the culture SHE was raised in found polygamy, adultry and deceit to be immoral and fairly repugnant.
So what's your answer, Rebeckah? If I have a religious conviction, should I just violate that and walk away from it simply because some woman's libber thinks I should? You talk as if ALL women think like you. My wife doesn't think like you. She has read your posts and comments and makes this observation: "I wonder how ANY MAN could love her. She just hates men altogether and is always mad."
BTW: TRY to remember that the culture that my wife was raised in found Heavenly Fathers system of organizing families a great blessing.
Rebeckah, we also need to remember that it was Joseph not Emma whom the lord called to be the Prophet in these the latter-days!
"some woman's libber thinks I should?"
Oddly enough, my joy in life is raising my children and grandchildren. I just believe that not every woman finds her joy in that area and that it is a crime against the Lord who creates us to relegate half of his creation to a second class status in life.
"You talk as if ALL women think like you. My wife doesn't think like you."
Actually, I talk as if every woman should have the right to think like me if she wants to. Your wife was raised in a culture that strongly indoctrinated her to think like she does. My culture indoctrinated me differently. I have no beef with her beliefs.
"She has read your posts and comments and makes this observation: "I wonder how ANY MAN could love her. She just hates men altogether and is always mad.""
Well I'm sure you and she can pat yourself on the backs and feel all smug and self-righteous in the knowledge that I am single and have been for the past 20 years. Please, by all means, ignore the fact that my single life has been the right thing for my life.
So Regina, where was all that tolerance that you've never seen cracks in? Fact is, you don't see it because you don't want to see it. You close your eyes and excuse it in those you choose as your special friends, but I've seen plenty of "We're right, you're wrong." And let's not forget the strong anti-female thread running through the fairly frequent use of words like "feminazi" and "woman's libber". Gasp!
"Rebeckah, we also need to remember that it was Joseph not Emma whom the lord called to be the Prophet in these the latter-days!"
You may need to remember that. I've read the material -- journals, news articles, affidavites, from that time period and I don't believe it for an instant. Frankly, even if I did I would reject your God. Any God who threatens you with "destruction" because you wish to be true to your own desires and the vows your husband made to you is not worth thinking about, much less worshipping.
"She just hates men altogether and is always mad."
In the interest of "transparency" I will let you know that I don't disagree with that, by the way. I don't "hate" men, but I strongly distrust them and their motives. I have very good reasons for that which I'm not about to go in to, but I am aware of my bias and do my best to restrain it. (I do this for the sake of my son and my grandsons. I absolutely DON'T want to give them the message that they are somehow defective or unworthy simply because they have a y chromosome.)
Rebeckah,
Just curious, do you believe the bible? Are you a Christian?
I'm not casting any aspersions here, I really am curious to try and understand what premise you are coming from.
Rebeckah said "You may need to remember that....
When I said we I did mean us. Which is my argument with you, why you keep thinking that we're supposed to place more importance on whatever you 'say that Emma thought' more than the Revelations from God through his chosen Prophet.
Cheese,
"Just curious, do you believe the bible? Are you a Christian?"
I was a Christian, until I started looking at the Mormon belief system. The more I investigated the more I realized that your faith expects people to essentially give up their own lives, dreams, desires and talents so that they can have some unspecified reward in the afterlife. (And as a woman I have to tell you that an eternity of childbirth and subservience to a man is NOT an inducement to accept your basic belief system.) However, my own basic fairness forced me to see the same exact flaws in my own belief system. While slightly more open to people determining their own destiny, Christianity still has lots of pointless rules that boil down to "Do as you are commanded, hang the right or wrong of it". So now, I'm trying to figure out what I believe. I'm not sure God exists, but if it does, I don't believe that it would be at all pleased with being used as an excuse to cause misery to others. And honestly, the antidepressant prescription figures in Utah show that there's a lot of misery there.
Rebeckah said: "I've read the material -- journals, news articles, affidavites, from that time period and I don't believe it for an instant. Frankly, even if I did I would reject your God. Any God who threatens you with "destruction" because you wish to be true to your own desires and the vows your husband made to you is not worth thinking about, much less worshipping."
So if I understand you correctly, if you did believe the doctrine you now would be an apostate? So you won't feel bad toward me if I consider all your rantings as "Apostate Narrative"?
Rebeckah said: "And honestly, the antidepressant prescription figures in Utah show that there's a lot of misery there."
Well, I and my family have never used them so I guess you're not talking about us.
"When I said we I did mean us. Which is my argument with you, why you keep thinking that we're supposed to place more importance on whatever you 'say that Emma thought' more than the Revelations from God through his chosen Prophet."
I think that a people who love and respect women the way it's been claimed would be deeply concerned at the thought that many women have been and continue to be very miserable because your God asks them to do more than is humanly possible. If you believe that it was okay for God to expect Emma to be miserable (and there is an awful lot of documentation to show she really was) for the rest of her life, then you show very little true love or respect for women in general. Your frequent usage of words like "feminazi" and "lesbian" about women that you don't even know their political or sexual orientation also shows a deep lack of respect. No, you don't have to give Emma's feelings a second thought. However not doing so kind of puts your "We deeply respect women" line to the lie.
"Well, I and my family have never used them so I guess you're not talking about us."
Cheese, the reason I think polygamy SHOULD be legalized is that I am aware that there actually are women who want to be in a restrictive, patriarchal system. Some women LIKE being told what to do, how to dress, what to think. I don't understand it, but I am aware that it is a fact and if it makes them happy, they should have a right to it. I do not, however, believe that it really is true of the majority of women -- not even in your culture. Also, Mormonism in general is based more on being perfect and working your way to heaven than it is based on grace or mercy, which creates tremendous stress, constant guilt for something as minor as "wrong" thoughts and breeds depression and hopelessness. I think that if you start to look around you with eyes to see you will find plenty of men and women who are quite miserable as a result of the belief system you hold to. It may be right for you, but it isn't right for everyone. Unfortunately, your religion isn't set up to allow those for whom it isn't right to leave it with dignity, respect and a good support group.
Rebeckah, for the record I do empathize with women who are or were married to jerks. But suppose that you were on the plane that went into the Hudson River the other day. You might come away from that experience with a different perspective of airplane travel than someone who got on the next plane and arrived at their destination with no 'hiccups'. That incident doesn't change the saftey or the lack thereof of airplane travel, and it's still just as safe now as it was before those people's harrowing experience. So what I'm getting at is I empathize with you if you had a bad experience (if, I'm not saying you did), but should all people be restricted from airplane travel because 150 had a harrowing experience? Should my family have a harrowing experience brought on by LE and CPS because there are people in the world who abuse their spouses and children? (I had the word 'wives' written instead of spouses but I changed it on suggestion from my wife. She commented that there are probably as many men abused by their wives as there are wives abused by their husbands. But oh, I forgot 'she's brainwashed'!!!)
"Should my family have a harrowing experience brought on by LE and CPS because there are people in the world who abuse their spouses and children?"
No, you should not have a harrowing experience because... However, that harrowing experience is quite likely to happen again, perhaps elsewhere, if the FLDS doesn't accept and change the part they played in it. In fact, if your religion had kept the promise they made in the 1950s this probably wouldn't have happened. Does that excuse the overkill? No, it doesn't. But human nature is human nature. You can keep fighting it and comfort yourself with tales of "persecution" and claims of "attempted genocide" or you can be honest with yourselves and actually see some reconciliation and trust begin to grow in BOTH directions.
"(I had the word 'wives' written instead of spouses but I changed it on suggestion from my wife. She commented that there are probably as many men abused by their wives as there are wives abused by their husbands. But oh, I forgot 'she's brainwashed'!!!)"
Actually I use the term indoctrinated for a reason. Brainwashing is rare and not accurate. Indoctrination is common in all religions. That being said, I don't believe there are anywhere near "as many" men abused by their wives as vice versa because women are less likely to deal with their issues through violence. However, it DOES happen and is just as sad and wrong when a woman does it as it is when a man does.
Mark Twain's answer when challenged to find a biblical reason that polygamy should not be allowed:
Simple. A man cannot serve two masters.
Rebekah,
Re vs 30. It's all about the seed. Welcome to the Cult of Sperm. Forget the Sermon on the Mount. It's Sperm that God cares about.
I don't hate men, either, in fact some of my best friends are men. LOL.
I am very suspicious of any man who proclaims himself the prophet of God. Second, if he tells you that God thinks you should pool all your money and goods in a storehouse and let him oversee it. That would make me very suspicious. But when he said that God had told him that his neighbor's wife was actually his wife in heaven, that would have really clenched it for me. Those messages do not come from God, they come from a little South of there.
God doesn't tell you to have sex with someone else's wife. Those messages come from a little lower than that.
Darn. I hate that I can't edit my posts here. Sometimes I don't see errors until after I hit enter. Oh, well, I'll live.
Rebeckah said: "I don't believe there are anywhere near "as many" men abused by their wives as vice versa because women are less likely to deal with their issues through violence."
My wife's first response was "Abuse isn't always through 'violence', silly lady"!
Betty said...
"I don't hate men, either, in fact some of my best friends are men. LOL."
Are any of them 'married' already?
"My wife's first response was "Abuse isn't always through 'violence', silly lady"!"
Valid point. I will conceed that willingly. ;D
"Are any of them 'married' already?"
What does it matter? One of my best friends in Connecticut was a married man. I was good friends with his wife too. Since I believe strongly in the sanctity of marriage we were all good friends together. (He and I just shared more of a quirky sense of humor and love of flights of imagination than his more practical wife did.)
I'm trying to cut you some slack because you seem to be very confused and you have such an extreme reaction to this because of a bad experience, which taints your view of men.
Oddly enough, my joy in life is raising my children and grandchildren. I just believe that not every woman finds her joy in that area and that it is a crime against the Lord who creates us to relegate half of his creation to a second class status in life.
If your JOY IN LIFE is raising children, then why in the next breath do you total disparage it by relegating it to "SECOND CLASS STATUS"?
How many times have you heard it said that Parenting is the Most Important Job in the World? The most important, and least valued in secular society. France has a better idea. The government pays minimum wage to either parent who stays home with a child until they are school age.
Why isn't that offered here in the wealthiest country on the planet? Why IS staying home with your children seen by you and others to be "second class status"? And, as we've seen, there are certainly those who persue a career and work outside the home within FLDS.
What's really bugging you?
Actually, I talk as if every woman should have the right to think like me if she wants to.
And what makes you think other women don't have that right?
"Femi-nazi" and "women libber" are not anti-FEMALE. There are women who take "liberation" to an extreme. Those, perhaps like yourself, who have had bad experiences with men which taints their opinions of men in general.
There's not one group of people who haven't experienced oppression on some level. You might benefit from looking at the men's liberation movement. They've endured their own oppression. Until you can clearly see that, you will see them as perpetrators and women as victims.
"If your JOY IN LIFE is raising children, then why in the next breath do you total disparage it by relegating it to "SECOND CLASS STATUS"?"
I would like you to show me one instance of me disparaging a woman who chooses to remain at home and dedicate herself to her family. You won't because I have the utmost respect for those woman and know from personal experience just how hard they work and what a joy and a challenge it is.
I claim that the FLDS regard women as second class citizens because of the doctrines they ascribe to and the extremely anti-female sentiments expressed by them towards any woman who doesn't toe their patriarchal line. The fact that a woman has no hope of making it to the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of how righteous or pure her life may be, unless a MAN leads her through the "veil" makes it pretty clear that women are powerless in this religion without a man. The fact that one man gets up to 200 hundred wives in this Celestial Kingdom, but no woman gets more than one husband, or into this "kingdom" without one, is yet another evidence. The fact that every woman who has dared to speak one word about the faith is derided as impure, lying, hysterical, and let's not forget "feminazi", proves their inherent worthlessness in the eyes of these men. I could go on, but you don't really care anyway.
"The government pays minimum wage to either parent who stays home with a child until they are school age.
Why isn't that offered here in the wealthiest country on the planet? Why IS staying home with your children seen by you and others to be "second class status"? And, as we've seen, there are certainly those who persue a career and work outside the home within FLDS."
Frankly I think that minimum wage isn't nearly enough for the work involved and I think it's a great idea. Once again, you are ascribing to me a philosophy that doesn't fit. I respect women who choose to stay home and nurture their children. I do NOT respect a religion that says all women must embrace that form of fulfillment, however. Women who are not nurturers and choose to make a difference in the workforce are just as admirable in my book -- especially if they choose to raise a family at the same time.
Rebeckah said: "I claim that the FLDS regard women as second class citizens because of the doctrines they ascribe to and the extremely anti-female sentiments expressed by them towards any woman who doesn't toe their patriarchal line. The fact that a woman has no hope of making it to the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of how righteous or pure her life may be, unless a MAN leads her through the "veil" makes it pretty clear that women are powerless in this religion without a man."
You're accusing a lot of women of regarding themselves as "second class citizens". It sounds like you have had a crap sandwich for a relationship and you think it's all somebody elses fault. Just because you are 'reaping what you've sown' doesn't mean all the FLDS women need to share in your vitreol towards men. Same goes for any other woman (a few new authors come to mind) who wants to make a mess out of her family relationships and then blame others for her plight.
Rebeckah said: "The fact that a woman has no hope of making it to the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of how righteous or pure her life may be, unless a MAN leads her through the "veil" makes it pretty clear that women are powerless in this religion without a man."
The fact that men can't without women ought to put your mind at ease on that issue. Sounds like men are equally powerless. Hey we have equality!!!!
You're accusing a lot of women of regarding themselves as "second class citizens"."
Hmmm, I know from my research that many, many, many women in the Mormon faith suffer from depression. I've read lots of personal testimonies about it and there is the pesky evidence of antidepressant prescriptions to show that the heartland of the Mormon faith is somehow missing out on the love, joy and peace it claims to bring. Since the FLDS are exponentially stricter in their expectations, it stands to reason that they have their share of depressed women too. But that's okay, Cheese, you keep your eyes closed and you don't have to see a thing. I'm sure God will bless you for it in the Celestial Kingdom.
"It sounds like you have had a crap sandwich for a relationship and you think it's all somebody elses fault."
Actually it started with a crap sandwitch for a father and went from there. Since I was a child, yeah, I kind of think my father's abuse was his issue and not mine. On the other hand, it was over a long time ago and I don't run around pointing my finger and whining about him.
"Just because you are 'reaping what you've sown' doesn't mean all the FLDS women need to share in your vitreol towards men."
Reaping what I've sown?! Reaping what I've sown!!? Just what have I sown, Cheese? Please, please enlighten me from your manly wisdom. Just what does an 8 year old girl "sow" to reap bruises on 70% of her body? (And that would just be the one time he was caught.) And what makes you think I want other women to feel "vitreol" for men? I admit to a bias because I'm honest and I strive to improve and you attack for it. Great example of tolerance and understanding, Cheese. You truly are a fine ambassador for your people.
"Same goes for any other woman (a few new authors come to mind) who wants to make a mess out of her family relationships and then blame others for her plight."
Yeah, it was all Elyssa Wall's fault that she was married off at the age of 14, even though she said she DIDN'T want to marry her cousin. All her fault. After all, no man could possibly have contributed to the disaster her life became. Not her father, not Warren Jeffs, not her husband. If Elyssa wasn't ready to be married at 14 then it was by-golly her own fault.
"The fact that men can't without women ought to put your mind at ease on that issue. Sounds like men are equally powerless. Hey we have equality!!!!"
Right. So Warren, with his 50+ wives is in the same boat that they are in. He can't just decide that Jane is unworthy, dump her by the wayside, oops, sorry honey, maybe some other guy will take you through that veil. And please tell me, which one of his women is the one to lead HIM through that veil? Oh right, no, God does that leading. And not while he's got his three "tickets" to the Celestial Kingdom with him. You keep right on believing that there's equality there. Whatever you do, DON'T take an honest look at just how you would feel if you had to live the proscribed life of a woman in the FLDS.
Cheese,
Your response of "it's YOUR fault" and "You hate us" proves everything the "apostates" have been saying. Women ARE second class citizens to you. Any woman who isn't happy with YOUR view of her role in life is wrong. In fact, she's doing something to be blamed for. Pliggy's little claim that "No woman will ever be a more effective leader than a man, therefore I would never follow one" is yet another example of FLDS sexism. The truth is, I think that most of the men are just as bound as the women. I don't hate them and I don't feel "vitreol" (although I could make an exception in your case). However, if you refuse to even look for the possibility of harm to others, well then you are "sowing" a few things in your own life. I am asking you, as one human being to another, to simply open your eyes, open your mind, and DO UNTO OTHERS (even women) AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.
Rebeckah,
"The fact that a woman has no hope of making it to the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of how righteous or pure her life may be, unless a MAN leads her through the "veil"
That is not wholly true. There will be Angels in the Celestial Kingdom who will not be married at all. But they won't have any children either. My Father in heaven is married, my Mother in heaven was just as important as He was. His role is Father(leader), her role is Mother(nurturer). On Earth, a mother is MORE important than a father to a child. A real father is to SUPPORT the MOTHER.
"Yeah, it was all Elyssa Wall's fault that she was married off at the age of 14, even though she said she DIDN'T want to marry her cousin."
The problem is that is not true whatsoever. She never said she didn't want to get married, OR she would not have gotten married! Its against our religion! It is retarding the truth to believe that she married against her will.
The "force" story came much later, after she was "indoctrinated" by the Anti-FLDS. Which, by the way, included her lying sister who sewed her wedding dress and had her part in supposedly "coercing" her into the marriage too. I hold nothing against Elissa in the personal choices she has made since then, but her lies have become truth to those like you. I feel sorry for YOU!
Rebeckah,
Men and women are different. If it is sexist to believe that men should be leaders, it is required of them and not women, then call me a sexist. For women it is an option, but not for men. You even realize that men and women are different, even if you don't want to admit it here. Women are much more likely to be "victims" of abuse in a relationship. Why? Because they NATURALLY look to MEN for STRENGTH. You cannot pretend that realizing there are differences is the same thing as discrimination.
It is YOU who are putting women into "second class" boxes in your own head. It is not "second class" to obey the doctrines of your faith. In fact the "requirements" of the religion are easier for women than men, they are as much in cahoots with the strictness thereof as the men are. If not MORE SO.
And yes, as I quoted before:
"In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
THAT INCLUDES YOU!
If you "thrive" in your "victim class"
that is your choice, your decision, and thus YOUR responsibility. Others have been hurt just as you have, but they don't "thrive" in it, they MOVE ON.
There are three ways to handle bad experiences (that you may or may not be responsible for):
Be bitter
Be better
Be broken
YOU DECIDE!
"Men and women are different. If it is sexist to believe that men should be leaders, it is required of them and not women, then call me a sexist."
Okay, you're sexist. It isn't required of EITHER gender to lead or to follow. Hormonal differences between the two lead to more women being willing to be led than men, but there's no genetic "requirement" anywhere. Frankly, any man who won't follow an educated and clever woman simply because she is a woman is an idiot. I'd rather have a smart woman who knows what she's doing give me instructions than a stupid man with no clue. (This isn't me trying to say that allmen are stupid. I'm just saying if those are the two options only an idiot would insist on following the man.)
Oh, and please tell my by just what criteria you determine that I'm in a "victim class". Frankly, I've always considered myself a surivior.
Pliggy,
One of the problems is that both you and Rebeckah write from two very different experiential bases.
Maybe there wouldn't be quite such a clash of perspectives if you both acknowledged that they are just that, perspectives.
You once told me that you could not imagine a woman not wanting to be a mother. That reflects your experience. It reflects your belief system, one that is shared by most of the people you grew up with, associated with, and identify with.
It is not an absolute in the world. In fact, there are many women who have no desire to parent. And they are perfectly happy with that choice. And it is a perfectly fine choice for them to make.
Same is true of this discussion you're having with Rebeckah. Leadership is a requirement of men, in your world. It is not such an absolute in the larger society. And leadership is not a gender specific, hard wiring quality. In your world, males are raised from day one to someday assume a leadership role. That is all they know. And it works for you. It is part of how you differentiate roles. In your world, women also lead, but in a different, more subtle way. And that works.
Neither are biologically defined roles. They are a case of nurture over nature. I know you don't agree with that. And that's okay.
As absolute as role definition is in your world, it is ever more amorphous in larger Western society.
There certainly was a time when we consciously or unconsciously raised our children to assume roles that were to a greater or lesser degree, gendere specific. Boys were firemen and policemen and engineers and soldiers. And women were nurses and teachers andlibrarians and homemakers. Ther wasn't a lot of deviation from that. But my generation, the baby boomers, have changed all of that.
We buy our daughters trucks and airplanes as often as we buy them dolls. And we buy our sons dolls along with dinosaurs. We teach our sons to be nurturers just as we teach our dauters to be defenders. We no longer have a world where gender limits one's horizons.
I don't think Rebeckah intended to convey that a woman who chooses to be a homemaker is a second class citizen. Certainly, there was a period of time, not so long ago, that one very militant sector of the woman's movement felt that it was not second class if it was a choice, but second class to believe it was the only choice, or that it was a coerced choice....
And I agree, in our larger culture, it is generally considered not a good idea to raise one's children to believe that their gender predetermines their roles....
Anyway, this discussion you're having is a big part of what I keep harping on about there being a real cultural divide and that folks who do not begin to learn your culture will be forever in conflict with you.....
Love you, my friend!!!
Hope you're headed this way soon!!!!
"Anyway, this discussion you're having is a big part of what I keep harping on about there being a real cultural divide and that folks who do not begin to learn your culture will be forever in conflict with you....."
Not to mention that you who don't begin to learn our culture will also be in conflict.
Culture or not, Regina, you know as well as I do that there are more than a few women that feel trapped and miserable in the "culture" Pliggy just described, whether they were raised in it or not. Some people simply are born unable to deal with an environment like that, and many more ARE going to feel like second class citizens. ("We can do this but you can only do that." Pretty hard NOT to feel second class with that going around.)
Rebeckah,
I think you are wrong. I do believe there are women who realize they do not want the FLDS culture. They leave. Not with all sorts of fanfare. Often with help from their families. Often going to stay with other family members on the outside.
I think to some degree there are people in general, in every culture who feel trapped and unhappy and don't feel they have a way out....but that is probably notgreater in an FLDS community than anywhere else.
I also don't think you realize how valued most men make their wives feel. I know what the Carolyns say. I just think their experience is atypical. I do believe most men try to make their wives feel like they are the most important people on earth.....
Remember, you talk about a woman can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without a husband, but the flip side is that a man can't get in with out wives.....wives who he treated well......
There actually is a yin for every yang....there is a lot of balance in their beliefs, even if you or I don't ascribe to their faith....those who truly do try to follow it are pretty respectful of each other and there is equality in the design....
or balance.....
Rebeckah said: "Actually it started with a crap sandwitch for a father and went from there. Since I was a child, yeah, I kind of think my father's abuse was his issue and not mine. On the other hand, it was over a long time ago and I don't run around pointing my finger and whining about him."
It seems that your mother would be somewhat responsible too don't you think? I just don't understand your hatred towards men. They aren't all like your father. There's absolutely no excuse for whatever it was that he did to you, but why is it that you seem to think that all men are basically like him? Why didn't your mother 'move on' and not subject you to that? I really do empathize with you, I just don't understand your venom.
This post has been removed by the author.
So you 'distruct' secular men, but feel 'disgust' for FLDS men.
You support secular mothers staying home with their children
(although you have no idea if it's by choice or some indoctrination they have received); yet you believe all FLDS women are indoctrinated to do so against their will, and ignore that some don't and many choose careers.
You appear very confused and are superimposing the alleged behavior of a few onto them all.
While you're reevaluating your religion, Rebeckah, you might want to also look at your government's (daddy's) role in supporting the Women's Liberation movements. Explore how they have benefited from it. How families have been hurt by it. How many women who would love to stay home with thier children no longer have that OPTION because the economy now demands they produce an income.
Yeh, Utah is known as the Prozac Capital- use particularly high among women. Consider the possibility that the LDS women are highly distressed since renouncing polygamy because they not only have all the responsibility of caring for the children (alone), but now they have to be gainfully employed as well. Not so different than the rest of society.
One in Ten American Women on Antidepressants
Something ain't right in the Land of the Free.
"I think to some degree there are people in general, in every culture who feel trapped and unhappy and don't feel they have a way out....but that is probably notgreater in an FLDS community than anywhere else."
The Mormons and, I assume, the FLDS have a great "blame and shame" dynamic going on. Go to exMormon.org sometime and read the letters sent to the man who created the site by Mormons. That site does a pretty good job of posting individual stories of why people left the religion without trying to lash out at it. Many, if not most, of the stories include the authors stating that they don't want to drag anyone out of Mormonism, they just want their stories to help those with doubts. Virtually every letter (although not all) is a personal attack on the man who founded the site and promises of eternal damnation. Now you say that women are helped to leave if this, even stricter, version of Mormonism makes them unhappy. I think you are dreaming. I think they are "counseled". Told to pray to find the truth of the FLDS faith. Told that if they had enough faith, or weren't sinning in their thoughts, or were "good" enough, that they would then be happy. I think it is a rare person, male or female, who stands firm in the face of condemnation and does what is best for them. So yes, I think there are a lot more desperately unhappy women (and some men) then you want to believe. Of course, that's just my opinion and based soley on what I've found about how exMormon feel and felt and applied to the FLDS with a bit of logic.
"I also don't think you realize how valued most men make their wives feel. I know what the Carolyns say. I just think their experience is atypical. I do believe most men try to make their wives feel like they are the most important people on earth....."
I don't know about that one way or another. I think it would be great, however, if the women didn't need a husband to make them feel valued and instead were offered a belief system that stressed their intrinsic value as a human and not as a womb.
"Remember, you talk about a woman can't get into the Celestial Kingdom without a husband, but the flip side is that a man can't get in with out wives.....wives who he treated well......"
Funny, I haven't read anything about the man having to treat his wives well. I've read comments comparing getting a new wife to getting a new cow. I've read about women supporting and agreeing with their husband or being utterly destroyed. I've read lots of justifications for the women to take all their direction from men. But I haven't actually run across anything, except the verse I posted about the women mourning because of the wickedness of their men.
Finally, yes, there are two sides to everything. I have a problem with the FLDS trying to claim that their side should somehow trump ours. I think that if the FLDS want to be shown compassion and consideration they need to show it to us. I firmly believe that an insistence that there is some moral dispensation for teen marriages is what infuriates society against them and that as long as they continue to insist that they should be allowed to do whatever they want under the guise of religion there will be serious issues between them and mainstream society. Is persecution still persecution when you deliberatly bring it upon yourself? Can you really be called a martyr when you went out in a hail of bullets, killing two men on your way?
"So you 'distruct' secular men, but feel 'disgust' for FLDS men."
Only in your imagination, TxBlogger.
"It seems that your mother would be somewhat responsible too don't you think?"
They divorced, he got custody.
"I just don't understand your hatred towards men. They aren't all like your father. There's absolutely no excuse for whatever it was that he did to you, but why is it that you seem to think that all men are basically like him?"
I don't automatically think all men are just like him. I am fortunate that I have known many wonderful, kind and very loving men. However, for every one of them I've known three men who were abusive, dogmatic and full of reasons why it was all the fault of the person they were abusing. In fact, your little "you reaped what you sowed" bit of blame and shame nonsense put you pretty firmly in that camp in my mind. I suspect that you think I'm angry because I DON'T have a man in my life and don't feel "loved" or some such nonsense. If I wanted to be married or in a relationship I would be. In fact, right after my husband divorced me there was a very kind man in my church who wanted to marry me. I am deeply proud of the fact that I told him "no". Why? Because he was kind and gentle and I was harsh and angry. I knew that I would make him miserable and he didn't deserve it. Waiting to heal from decades of abuse was the kindest thing I've probably ever done in my life. I don't regret it for a moment. He married someone else and I truly hope they both found great joy and fulfillment with each other. He certainly deserved it.
"Why didn't your mother 'move on' and not subject you to that?"
My Mother is pretty disfunctional too. You really don't want me to share about her second husband. He wasn't really even a step-father to me, but he was certainly another example to me of the basic reasons not to trust men.
"I really do empathize with you, I just don't understand your venom."
Yeah, I really felt the love when you informed me that I sowed my own abuse. It gave me warm fuzzies inside.
"You appear very confused and are superimposing the alleged behavior of a few onto them all."
Actually, TxBlogger, it's you who are confused. You're confused about what I think and feel because you've been putting your own "twist" onto what I've posted. I don't "'distruct' secular men, but feel 'disgust' for FLDS men." I take it on a person by person basis. I'm pretty disgusted by several things said by Pliggy and Cheese but I believe that they are the best people they know how to be. I do have "disgust" for Mormonism in general. It's a nasty religion that hurts people, and not just women. (If it makes you feel better, I have a healthy "disgust" for Catholisism and Jehovah's Witnesses and other authoritarian religions that jump joyously into the "you vile sinner!" camp.)
"You support secular mothers staying home with their children
(although you have no idea if it's by choice or some indoctrination they have received)"
I support them having the choice to do so. Given the chance to stay home and take care of her children full time for a minimum wage paycheck I know that my daughter would still work. I, on the other hand, would have been overjoyed. I support CHOICE, TxBlogger -- twist that however you like.
"yet you believe all FLDS women are indoctrinated to do so against their will, and ignore that some don't and many choose careers."
Right, and show me where I said "all FLDS women are indoctrinated to stay home with their children against their will". I have actually read the blog and the stories and I'm well aware that many of the women work outside the home and many of them do so in professional capabilities. Please, TxBlogger, explain to me just what I'm thinking some more. While you're at it, try rereading a few of my posts with an open mind. I'm getting kind of tired of being told I believe something I don't by you.
Rebecka wrote...
"That site does a pretty good job of posting individual stories of why people left the religion without trying to lash out at it."
And then...
"Funny, I haven't read anything about the man having to treat his wives well. I've read comments comparing getting a new wife to getting a new cow. I've read about women supporting and agreeing with their husband or being utterly destroyed. I've read lots of justifications for the women to take all their direction from men. But I haven't actually run across anything, except the verse I posted about the women mourning because of the wickedness of their men."
ROFL
And by the way, MANLINESS is defined as "Magnanimity", and if you want to see the perfect example, read the New Testament. Leadership is not dictator power, it is showing EXAMPLE. Men and women "roles" will be "equal" the day a man becomes pregnant. And anyone who WANTS that day to come is goofy! Culture smulture!
Regina I have seen women who are happy without having a child, but I have never seen one who is HAPPIER than one who has children around her. Common SENSE!!
Ok, I accept it is cultural, but boy am I glad for my culture.
man·ly (mnl) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
man·li·er , man·li·est
* Having qualities traditionally attributed to a man.
* Belonging to or befitting a man; masculine. See Synonyms at male.
ADVERB:
In a manly manner.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/manly
Nope, sorry, manliness does not equal managamous in this dictionary.
"Ok, I accept it is cultural, but boy am I glad for my culture."
How odd. I'm glad for my culture too.
Rebeckah,
It just seems that it is impossible for you to accept that beliefs you personally find offensive or problematic are 'okay' for others.
You seem to want to convert them to your way of thinking. Or to adopt your values concerning religion and living....
That's the epitome of intolerant....
Pliggy,
In many ways I envy your ability to have such faith. I think it probably makes some aspects of life a bit easier. Or cleaner, at least. Not all sorts of murky maybes floating around...*smile*
man⋅ly
/ˈmænli/ [man-lee]
adjective, -li⋅er, -li⋅est, adverb
–adjective
1. having qualities traditionally ascribed to men, as strength or bravery.
2. pertaining to or suitable for males: manly sports.
–adverb
3. Archaic. in a manly manner.
man⋅ful
/ˈmænfəl/ [man-fuhl]
–adjective
having or showing boldness, courage, or strength; resolute.
Masculine
Mas"cu*line\, a. [L. masculinus, fr. masculus male, manly, dim. of mas a male: cf. F. masculin. See Male masculine.]
1. Of the male sex; not female.
Thy masculine children, that is to say, thy sons. --Chaucer.
2. Having the qualities of a man; suitable to, or characteristic of, a man; virile; not feminine or effeminate; strong; robust.
That lady, after her husband's death, held the reins with a masculine energy. --Hallam.
3. Belonging to males; appropriated to, or used by, males. [R.] "A masculine church." --Fuller.
4. (Gram.) Having the inflections of, or construed with, words pertaining especially to male beings, as distinguished from feminine and neuter. See Gender. -- Mas"cu*line*ly, adv. -- Mas"cu*line*ness, n.
Magnanimous
Mag*nan"i*mous\, a.[L. magnanimus; magnus great + animus mind. See Magnate, and Animus.]
1. Great of mind; elevated in soul or in sentiment; raised above what is low, mean, or ungenerous; of lofty and courageous spirit; as, a magnanimous character; a magnanimous conqueror.
Be magnanimous in the enterprise. --Shak.
To give a kingdom hath been thought Greater and nobler done, and to law down Far more magnanimousan to assume. --Milton.
2. Dictated by or exhibiting nobleness of soul; honorable; noble; not selfish.
Both strived for death; magnanimous debate. --Stirling.
There is an indissoluble union between a magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity. --Washington.
[All from dictionary.com]
Women who think it is "beneath" them to be feminine are the ones who are miserable. Of course there are WAY more good women than good men, but men are quite often the result of their mother.
"Magnanimous
Mag*nan"i*mous\, a.[L. magnanimus; magnus great + animus mind. See Magnate, and Animus.]
1. Great of mind; elevated in soul or in sentiment; raised above what is low, mean, or ungenerous; of lofty and courageous spirit; as, a magnanimous character; a magnanimous conqueror.
Be magnanimous in the enterprise. --Shak.
To give a kingdom hath been thought Greater and nobler done, and to law down Far more magnanimousan to assume. --Milton.
2. Dictated by or exhibiting nobleness of soul; honorable; noble; not selfish."
This definition makes it a HUMAN quality, not a male or female one. Or are females "unfeminine" if they choose magnamity in their lives?
Regina, you wrote the book on intolerance. The difference between your intolerance and mine is that I am willing to look at my biases and try to work on them -- you, on the other hand, justify and rationalize them.
You certainly have a strange way of "working" on your intolerance.
FLDS teen disputes mom's book
Polygamy » Betty Jessop is writing her own account.
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 01/26/2009 11:03:02 PM MST
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11559735
...Betty is slim, with strawberry blond hair, fair skin and a laugh that comes often. She was 13 in 2003 when her mother left and moved to Salt Lake City.
As described in Escape -- and acknowledged by Betty -- she went kicking and screaming. Betty said traumatic years followed as she struggled to cope with mainstream society and fought with her mother.
Their arguments, she said, centered on her desire to live according to the sect's principles and her mother's determination to keep her from the faith, her father and her extended family.
"I was such a representation of everything she hated so much," Betty said.
On July 2, 2007, Betty turned 18. Two days later she returned to the sect, celebrating what she now calls her own independence day.
"I just couldn't deny what was in my heart -- my belief in my religion and my love for my father and my family," she said. "I spent four years [in mainstream society], and there is nothing there for me.
"I would never trade my experience for anything in the world," she said. "It made my fire and determination much more intense."
Betty has not married, though she said she looks forward to becoming "part of a home that is alive, never ending, growing."
She spends about eight-hours most days on her book, splitting her time between San Antonio and the ranch. Betty also works in the community's sewing factory, helps with meals and spends time with her other siblings.
Betty said she has drawn from personal journals for details about her childhood, her parents' divorce and experiences living away from the FLDS community.
She expects former classmates at Midvale Middle School and West Jordan High School will be surprised by "how ornery and aggressive" she was at home given the quiet, calm facade she put on in public.
Betty said her mother's health problems -- Carolyn says in her book she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder -- meant many household and child care duties fell to her, even on school days. Betty quips that resulted in her own "current-traumatic stress disorder."
"With the responsibility landing on me so hard every morning, I was an emotional wreck, and after a while, I hardened into a frazzled bundle of nerves," she writes. Betty said that after two years -- and ongoing threats to send her to foster care -- she moved in with an uncle who had also left the FLDS.
THREATS TO SEND HER TO FOSTER CARE. What is wrong with Carolyn that she so quick to put kids in state care? Turn them over to strangers? Is that part of her personality or her PTSD?
At public school, the "unbridled vulgarity and immorality" were a shock, Betty writes, and the pressure almost unbearable. It was hard "to see how students acted, their language and how teachers didn't do anything about it," Betty said.
She focused on succeeding academically in part to disprove her mother's criticism of FLDS schools.
"I was constantly told I wouldn't do good in school and that I would be persecuted because of how I looked," said Betty, who graduated with honors.
Despite the mocking and questions she got at school, Betty wore the sect's conservative, body-covering dresses, even in gym class.
There were other awkward moments. In one class, she was asked to share plans following graduation. College? A church mission? Work?
"That was a tricky question on my part," Betty said. "How do I say what I want in front of all these people who already think I'm weird?"
Her answer? "I'm not sure," she said. The teacher pressed, but Betty kept silent.
"I couldn't say I wanted to go home and be a mother in Zion," Betty said. "They wouldn't understand that."
She made some friends, but visiting their homes reinforced her desire to return to her polygamous community. "The feeling I got, it was so empty," she said.
While her mother describes Merril Jessop as a cruel husband and father, Betty speaks of him as loving, kind and with an "unconquerable spirit."
Betty said she and her mother have not spoken since September, when she called to wish a younger brother happy birthday. "She doesn't call me and neither do my siblings," Betty said. "I miss [my siblings] so much and hope with all my heart they can survive."
It may be strange, Pliggy, but at least it's an effort. You and Regina don't even go that far. Cry me a river...
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
hic!-water-hic!-water-water-water-wate
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Like it I made it just for you!!
And by the way those definitions of "manly" and "masculine" could be considered human also, in manly girls :O)
The point is feminism is not female manliness in my book. It is female FREEDOM
Post a Comment
<< Home