FLDS community = Hell on earth

[tmac]

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with any of that. But the message I'm getting from you women at this juncture in this thread is that you want to paint all Fundamentalists with a broad brush, and want to paint all men with a broad brush, but you don't want anyone else to take a similar, flawed approach, in applying a broad brush.

As WW says, it is a fallen, telestial world, full of sinners of all stripes. Like my grandmother used to say "There is enough bad in the best of us, and enough good in the worst of us, that it ill-behooves anyone to say anything about the rest of us." And, as Sarah says, Let God be the Judge. I agree. Let's live and let live, and let God be the judge. Amen.

[Sarah]

Fair enough. I don't have a problem with any of that. But the message I'm getting from you women at this juncture in this thread is that you want to paint all Fundamentalists with a broad brush, and want to paint all men with a broad brush, but you don't want anyone else to take a similar, flawed approach, in applying a broad brush.

As WW says, it is a fallen, telestial world, full of sinners of all stripes. Like my grandmother used to say "There is enough bad in the best of us, and enough good in the worst of us, that it ill-behooves anyone to say anything about the rest of us." And, as Sarah says, Let God be the Judge. I agree. Let's live and let live, and let God be the judge. Amen.

I don't believe I was passing judgement on fundamentalists or painting a broad brush. Just pointing out the problems in general with polygyny and why I think it should not be practiced. There's a reason why God commanded Lehi/Nephities to only have one wife.

[Severus]

It has always been interesting to me the way people (especially women — as if they are the only “victim(s)” in the equation) freak-out about arranged marriage, while the track record of “romantic” pairing is a 50% divorce rate, which is not a very good recommendation.

The primary mating system for most mainstream Mormons is to simply send their kids to college (especially BYU and BYUI — sometimes referred to as the “happy hunting grounds”) , cross their fingers, and let hormones do the rest. My own view is that the resulting track record is hardly anything to brag about.

Every time an FLDS girl runs away or an FLDS woman leaves her husband it’s supposed to be a big news story, while tens of thousands of LDS women leave their husbands for a myriad of reasons, and no one bats an eye. Further evidence of the strong inherent biases.

In this instance and other recent cases, it is interesting that the applicable teenaged girls have run away from foster care or their mothers who “escaped." Their purpose in running away was to return to their faith communities, etc. In this case, a 16 year-old girl “borrowed” her “escaped” mother’s car and risked life and limb to presumably return to her faith community. Whether others agree with those choices or not, I would say that some liberty/agency was being exercised there.

Women are probably more free to leave their husbands now than they were in the past. In the past they may have been stuck in an unhappy marriage, unable to leave because it would have been financially impossible to do so. So maybe women have more financial freedom and opportunities now than in the past. And that means they can leave an abusive relationship.

There was an amazing(to me) amount of divorce during polygamy days in the church.

[Severus]

I guess I’m a big fan of liberty and women not being treated like chattel.

Tell that to the DOZENS of plural wives whom I actually know and have lived around for extended periods of time—who are very happy with their situations, and who aren’t just faking it.

It was the part about the marriage being arranged that made it sound icky to me. So if they entered into it willingly and they’re happy, then that’s great for them.

I guess it’s still possible to be happy in an arranged marriage, but it doesn’t sound ideal to me. Maybe marriage was more of a societal necessity/ monetary arrangement/ duty in the past and romantic marriage is a new concept. But the romantic marriage notion worked out for Joseph and Emma Smith.

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic or sexual feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

[Sarah]

Tell that to the DOZENS of plural wives whom I actually know and have lived around for extended periods of time—who are very happy with their situations, and who aren’t just faking it.

It was the part about the marriage being arranged that made it sound icky to me. So if they entered into it willingly and they’re happy, then that’s great for them.

I guess it’s still possible to be happy in an arranged marriage, but it doesn’t sound ideal to me. Maybe marriage was more of a societal necessity/ monetary arrangement/ duty in the past and romantic marriage is a new concept. But the romantic marriage notion worked out for Joseph and Emma Smith.

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

[Bronco73idi]

It was the part about the marriage being arranged that made it sound icky to me. So if they entered into it willingly and they’re happy, then that’s great for them.

I guess it’s still possible to be happy in an arranged marriage, but it doesn’t sound ideal to me. Maybe marriage was more of a societal necessity/ monetary arrangement/ duty in the past and romantic marriage is a new concept. But the romantic marriage notion worked out for Joseph and Emma Smith.

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

[Sarah]

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

[tmac]

It's amazing the defensiveness a simple, straight-forward question can evoke.

[Wolfwoman]

Tell that to the DOZENS of plural wives whom I actually know and have lived around for extended periods of time—who are very happy with their situations, and who aren’t just faking it.

It was the part about the marriage being arranged that made it sound icky to me. So if they entered into it willingly and they’re happy, then that’s great for them.

I guess it’s still possible to be happy in an arranged marriage, but it doesn’t sound ideal to me. Maybe marriage was more of a societal necessity/ monetary arrangement/ duty in the past and romantic marriage is a new concept. But the romantic marriage notion worked out for Joseph and Emma Smith.

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic or sexual feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Isaac and Rebekah seemed to be in love. And Jacob and Rachel seemed to be in love too.

I don’t think arranged marriages are going to create the utopia you think they will.

I bet SWK was attracted to Camilla.
If you want to marry someone you’re not sexually attracted to, go for it. But don’t force it on others.

[Sarah]

It's amazing the defensiveness a simple, straight-forward question can evoke.

Not as amazing as how quick some are to start making personal attacks, diverging from actually discussing the issues.

[Bronco73idi]

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

I would love if a Stake President was so wise.

The idea you want to complain about a none celestial outcome shows where your thoughts are.

[Severus]

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Oh yes. Absolutely. Eternal joy. Real eternal joy.

[Severus]

It was the part about the marriage being arranged that made it sound icky to me. So if they entered into it willingly and they’re happy, then that’s great for them.

I guess it’s still possible to be happy in an arranged marriage, but it doesn’t sound ideal to me. Maybe marriage was more of a societal necessity/ monetary arrangement/ duty in the past and romantic marriage is a new concept. But the romantic marriage notion worked out for Joseph and Emma Smith.

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic or sexual feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Isaac and Rebekah seemed to be in love. And Jacob and Rachel seemed to be in love too.

I don’t think arranged marriages are going to create the utopia you think they will.

I bet SWK was attracted to Camilla.
If you want to marry someone you’re not sexually attracted to, go for it. But don’t force it on others.

It's not what I "want", it is what the Lord wants. The unsubmitted will is the definition of all evil. And yes I did marry the person the Lord planned for me to. And I had many other choices I could have made at that time. But I obeyed the Lord. Though I was disappointed at the time, all these years later I am so very grateful I did.

[Sarah]

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

I would love if a Stake President was so wise.

The idea you want to complain about a none celestial outcome shows where your thoughts are.

So you really think the Stake Presidents should make all those decisions right now. What would you do if your Stake President assigned you something you didn't like and you didn't trust his wisdom? Would you still go along with it?
Do you think it possible that children may not trust their parents to make that marriage decision for them?

What Celestial outcome are you saying that I'm complaining about?

[Sarah]

Again, the FLDS is not the same thing as Mormon Fundamentalism. The FLDS is just one small segment of the Fundamentalist movement, just like the LDS Church is just one branch of the Latter-day Saint movement as a whole, or the Catholic Church is just one denomination of Christianity.

Also, romance is clearly antithetical to the type of marriage covenant God designed. Not that it’s bad—but having that as a foundation rather than the concept marriage being a social contract designed to create godly social structures being the foundation—is false. Expectations have been totally subverted. It’s no wonder that lasting marriages are becoming more and more rare. Correlation is not causation but it’s hard to ignore a decline in lasting, successful marriages coming along at the same time as this concept of Hollywood-style romance going mainstream.

Nice attempt at trying to say that Joseph wasn’t a polygamist by the way . Not going to work with me though

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic or sexual feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Isaac and Rebekah seemed to be in love. And Jacob and Rachel seemed to be in love too.

I don’t think arranged marriages are going to create the utopia you think they will.

I bet SWK was attracted to Camilla.
If you want to marry someone you’re not sexually attracted to, go for it. But don’t force it on others.

It's not what I "want", it is what the Lord wants. The unsubmitted will is the definition of all evil. And yes I did marry the person the Lord planned for me to. And I had many other choices I could have made at that time. But I obeyed the Lord. Though I was disappointed at the time, all these years later I am so very grateful I did.

Receiving revelation about what the Lord knows is best for you, and arguing that earthly men should have that same authority to dictate marriage is comparing apples to oranges. With that reasoning we should abolish the Constitution and find men who are entitled to rule, just like the King men thought.

[Severus]

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

You realize of course, that Joseph and Mary had an arranged marraige? Mary didn't make a conscious choice to be the wife of Joseph, you know. Her parents did. There was no courtship, no dating, no sending flowers or calling each other on the telephone. They didn't go out to dinner, gush over each or make goo goo eyes. In fact, when Joseph found out she was pregnant, and it was HIS choice to divorce her, and it took an angelic visit to stop him. Doesn't sound like the heartbroken lover to me. And man that had to be the freakin' most christ centered marraige ever.

And you know it was usually the thing that a son followed in the profession of his father back then? So we just naturally assume that Jesus knew the carpentry trade. No choice there. The Lord runs a house of order. In Zion, when it gets redeemed, I would naturally suppose that God will decide what a guy does there.

[Sarah]

We all tend to think that the undermining of marraige has its beginnings in modern times, but it began much earlier with the loss of arranged marraiges. Anciently, like in bible days, "falling in love" was considered a form of insanity. And it was. Just think about it. A person "in love" does not think objectively or in any way rationally about the person they are "in love" with. It won't matter how many warnings such a person gets he/she continues to be on "cloud nine" with no thought for reality or the future. Oh yeah, I can see why it was seen as a form of madness back in the day. Such feelings are definately in the ball park of passions that, as Alma says, should be bridled and under control and not allowed to control YOU.

I am all for romance, but it is the frosting on the cake, not the cake itself.

When we started making the thrill of romance and attraction the highest form of love, and then said sex was love to elevate promiscuous relations between those who believed this, we opened the door to many evils, such as the "love child" born out of wedlock. Same sex marraige could never exist in a world with arranged marraiges, for instance.

So many men and women are sold on the idea of romantic love and sexual attraction being the basis of their marraige and are afraid that an arranged marraige would strap them to someone they found unnattractive or could never have romantic feelings for. That is a low place to put what ties your marraige together on.

The marraige covenant, as God designed it, is spiritual. I believe SWK when he said that any two people could have a successful marraige if they were unselfish. This is so deeply true.

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Oh yes. Absolutely. Eternal joy. Real eternal joy.

And I believe the same, as long as they both love and respect each other with Chirst-like love, and there is no compulsion or manipulation going on in the marriage, any two people can develop Celestial love. I'm not even sure why he asked me the question as this is an issue of freedom vs. compulsion. Even people who are compelled to do things they don't want to do, can find joy and happiness by living the commandments, just like those under strict laws, and unjust laws can find joy, but the issue is whether or not the ideal way to get the "outcomes" of good Celestial marriages is to make all those decisions for people. There is truth in the idea that we should have the chance to be accountable for our choices and reap what we sow, and that includes the decision of who we want to partner with.

[Sarah]

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

You realize of course, that Joseph and Mary had an arranged marraige? Mary didn't make a conscious choice to be the wife of Joseph, you know. Her parents did. There was no courtship, no dating, no sending flowers or calling each other on the telephone. They didn't go out to dinner, gush over each or make goo goo eyes. In fact, when Joseph found out she was pregnant, he made out to divorce her, and it took an angelic visit to stop him. Doesn't sound like the heartbroken lover to me. And that had to be the freakin' most christ centered marraige ever.
And you know it was usually the thing that a son followed in the profession of his father back then? So Jesus is naturally going to be a carpenter? And all his brothers probably.

There is a progression. Just because a people have a tradition of parents controlling the children, doesn't make that the ideal Celestial Law. There is a progression from having to have strict Laws (think Law of Moses) to more freedom. The more one is able to live responsibly, lovingly, unselfishly, etc, the more freedom that person can handle. The Celestial Kingdom will be the ultimate in freedom, because everyone there will have demonstrated that they can choose wisely and unselfishly. They don't need to be told what to do.

We live in a world that has had a spectrum of freedoms allowed to people. Our Heavenly Father sent us down here to exercise our agency, and if we don't have the freedom to make choices, then we can't be held accountable and learn from our choices. Parents should gradually give their children more freedom the older they get, not just out of respect for their age, but because they have demonstrated that they can make wise decisions. And if they fail - that's on them. You tried. But at some point parents need to let go. They also had a theocracy in the olden days in certain parts of the world, and it sure has the potential to produce the perfect outcome, but would you argue for a theocracy here in America or keep with the principles of freedom of religion that we also have practiced in Book of Mormon times?

[Severus]

Had a brief job as a nanny for an Indian couple in an arranged marriage - just one child - she admitted to me that she thought it unfortunate that she was forced into marriage this way and they weren't happy and didn't get along that great apparently. Good luck trying to convince people who've had a taste of freedom that we should go back to the day when children had no rights and they and their mothers were considered property/slaves to the father/husband.

As a society we should encourage marriage by recognizing men and women who choose to work together to raise children. We do that with law and special rights and privileges for married couples and parents.

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Oh yes. Absolutely. Eternal joy. Real eternal joy.

And I believe the same, as long as they both love and respect each other with Chirst-like love, and there is no compulsion or manipulation going on in the marriage, any two people can develop Celestial love. I'm not even sure why he asked me the question as this is an issue of freedom vs. compulsion. Even people who are compelled to do things they don't want to do, can find joy and happiness by living the commandments, just like those under strict laws, and unjust laws can find joy, but the issue is whether or not the ideal way to get the "outcomes" of good Celestial marriages is to make all those decisions for people. There is truth in the idea that we should have the chance to be accountable for our choices and reap what we sow, and that includes the decision of who we want to partner with.

For most people on earth, choosing who to "partner" with was not part of their earth experience. It is nowhere looked upon highly in the scriptural record.

[Severus]

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

You realize of course, that Joseph and Mary had an arranged marraige? Mary didn't make a conscious choice to be the wife of Joseph, you know. Her parents did. There was no courtship, no dating, no sending flowers or calling each other on the telephone. They didn't go out to dinner, gush over each or make goo goo eyes. In fact, when Joseph found out she was pregnant, he made out to divorce her, and it took an angelic visit to stop him. Doesn't sound like the heartbroken lover to me. And that had to be the freakin' most christ centered marraige ever.
And you know it was usually the thing that a son followed in the profession of his father back then? So Jesus is naturally going to be a carpenter? And all his brothers probably.

There is a progression. Just because a people have a tradition of parents controlling the children, doesn't make that the ideal Celestial Law. There is a progression from having to have strict Laws (think Law of Moses) to more freedom. The more one is able to live responsibly, lovingly, unselfishly, etc, the more freedom that person can handle. The Celestial Kingdom will be the ultimate in freedom, because everyone there will have demonstrated that they can choose wisely and unselfishly. They don't need to be told what to do.

We live in a world that has had a spectrum of freedoms allowed to people. Our Heavenly Father sent us down here to exercise our agency, and if we don't have the freedom to make choices, then we can't be held accountable and learn from our choices. Parents should gradually give their children more freedom the older they get, not just out of respect for their age, but because they have demonstrated that they can make wise decisions. And if they fail - that's on them. You tried. But at some point parents need to let go. They also had a theocracy in the olden days in certain parts of the world, and it sure has the potential to produce the perfect outcome, but would you argue for a theocracy here in America or keep with the principles of freedom of religion that we also have practiced in Book of Mormon times?

In Book of Mormon times they had arranged marraiges. We see that with Lehi getting the word from the Lord that Ishmael had to be persuaded to join them on their flight into the wilderness so his sons had wives. And sons followed in the footsteps of their fathers when it came to a vocation, too.

You aren't making any sense here, Sarah.

[Sarah]

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Oh yes. Absolutely. Eternal joy. Real eternal joy.

And I believe the same, as long as they both love and respect each other with Chirst-like love, and there is no compulsion or manipulation going on in the marriage, any two people can develop Celestial love. I'm not even sure why he asked me the question as this is an issue of freedom vs. compulsion. Even people who are compelled to do things they don't want to do, can find joy and happiness by living the commandments, just like those under strict laws, and unjust laws can find joy, but the issue is whether or not the ideal way to get the "outcomes" of good Celestial marriages is to make all those decisions for people. There is truth in the idea that we should have the chance to be accountable for our choices and reap what we sow, and that includes the decision of who we want to partner with.

For most people on earth, choosing who to "partner" with was not part of their earth experience. It is nowhere looked upon highly in the scriptural record.

The scriptural record describes the fallen state of man within the historical account. For most people on the earth, their reality was tyranny and unrighteous dominion and slavery. That reality doesn't make that the Lord's standard, but it is part of our earthly tutoring to teach us the difference between good and evil. If it was truly better, why did Joseph not restore a law that commanded parents in Zion to choose spouses for their children?

[Bronco73idi]

So 2 good and honest people can not find eternal joy together?

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

I would love if a Stake President was so wise.

The idea you want to complain about a none celestial outcome shows where your thoughts are.

So you really think the Stake Presidents should make all those decisions right now. What would you do if your Stake President assigned you something you didn't like and you didn't trust his wisdom? Would you still go along with it?
Do you think it possible that children may not trust their parents to make that marriage decision for them?

What Celestial outcome are you saying that I'm complaining about?

Right now could never happen, they can’t teach that a woman isn’t judge the same as a man. They are drunken and not of wine.

[tmac]

. . . As this thread devolves into the same old, highly predictable, endless, ad nauseum debate about plural marriage. . . .

If there is anything eternal and everlasting on LDSFF, it is that.

[Sarah]

Of course they can find happiness, just like a person in North Korea who is threatened with starvation for disobedience can be happy in obeying the benevolent, wise master. But is this the ideal to have no choice in the matter? There's a reason why the constitution and DofL was so radical. They protected certain rights, and demanded a balance of power. Perhaps you would like it if the Stake Presidents dictated arranged occupations for all the men and decided who should marry who?

I would love if a Stake President was so wise.

The idea you want to complain about a none celestial outcome shows where your thoughts are.

So you really think the Stake Presidents should make all those decisions right now. What would you do if your Stake President assigned you something you didn't like and you didn't trust his wisdom? Would you still go along with it?
Do you think it possible that children may not trust their parents to make that marriage decision for them?

What Celestial outcome are you saying that I'm complaining about?

Right now could never happen, they can’t teach that a woman isn’t judge the same as a man. They are drunken and not of wine.

Maybe men need to read the story of Deborah more often.

[tmac]

I am interested to hear exactly what it is you take away from the story of Deborah.

But to put her story in contest, the Lord had commanded the House of Israel to kill all the Canaanites and Philistines, and to stay completely separate from them. But instead of obeying God’ commandments, they did not destroy them, and gave way to “romantic” mating, and started inter-marrying with them, contrary to God’s commandments and Divine order, all of which led to their downfall — which actually continues to this day.

Sure, Deborah was a great woman, and played a role in the whole equation, but the bottom line is, without God’s power her gender would have made little difference. There are plenty of female heros in the scriptures. But exactly what is it that you take away from her story — especially as it relates to this subject of plural marriage?