Monday, June 02, 2008

Happy Day: FLDS Families Reunited

The children are going home! I am thrilled. You can read about it here.

4 comments:

margi said...

Those poor little kids are the losers which ever way you look at it. Most of their mothers aren't married in God's eyes, they're fornicators and adulteresses (even in their Little House on the Prairie frocks) who will bring their boys up to believe multiple sexual partners are holy and their daughters to regard themselves as baby-making machines for men who do not truly love them or honour them (at least not in terms God Incarnate and St Paul would accept). Mormons don't have large families for the reasons Christians do. Mormons are not Christian, their theology is corrupt and their beliefs regarding marriage and family follow on from that. Polygamy, underage marriages and forced/arranged marriages are a practical response to a belief in masses of precreated souls desperately seeking bodies and the spiritual imperative to provide them. These children weren't conceived because mommy and daddy are in love but because spirits need flesh. Yes, they have rights, one of which is to be with their mother, but the wider picture is far from wholesome.

I am horrified by the way Christians are seduced by modest dress and soap and water complexions. It doesn't matter how many happy photos they can post because any cult can do that, but it should matter that the men are bed-hopping and the kids will know it soon enough. I can't think of any other circumstances in which Christians would find this acceptable. I mean, if the mothers of these happy kids had mini skirts and tattoos and two or three male lovers each, would they be getting any support from Christians? I have a strangely pervasive feeling that they might not.

Dollymama said...

Hi Margi,

Since you've never commented here before I'm guessing that you might have just come across my blog because you were reading about the FLDS situation. If you go to my current events category you can read the many posts I've written on the subject.

I do want to respond to your comment, since you were kind enough to take the time to write it.

First of all, I wonder what you think constitutes a marriage in God's eyes. There are many polygamist men in the Bible that were also considered to be Godly men. There is nothing in the Bible that requires us to have marriage licenses. In the case of Isaac, the Bible says he took Rebekah into his tent and she was his wife. I do not know of any place in the Bible that forbids polygamy, though I do know of some select situations where men are to only have one wife.

I do understand that the FLDS belief about plural marriages comes from outside of the Bible. I am not a polygamist, but don't personally care if others are, and think that it is none of the government's business one way or the other.

I don't know about other Christians, but I can tell you that I have not been seduced by the FLDS dress or lack of makeup. My position that the children of the FLDS families should never have been removed from their parents is because of my understanding about what it means to be an American citizen. The rights of these families were severely violated, and I stand against that, just as I would if the mothers smoked, had tattoos and belly rings, or had bums for husbands, or no husbands at all. This is an issue of being safe in our own country from terrorism and abuse by government agencies.

I do not have a full education about what the FLDS religion is about, but I would guess that there are very many things about it that I would not agree with. Again, my concern is that these children should never have been taken from their parents. It was a violation of their rights and the rights of their parents, as has been supported by the courts.

Again, if you read more of what I have already written on the subject, you will see that I do not believe that having polygamist practices means that these children are not being brought up in good, loving homes. I fully realize that there are children being brought up in a very wide range of cultures all over the world with many different ideas about what is good and normal, and most of these children will grow up to be fairly normal, well-rounded people. It's not for me (or you) to start sorting out who is doing the job "right." If it comes to that, I can guarantee you that someone and some time is going to point to me or to YOU to declare that our children would be better off elsewhere. This is the issue that is at stake.

margi said...

Actually I found you through the links on Alana's blog (Morning Coffee). Perhaps I am wrong but I thought both Christ and St Paul forbade polygamy. As Christians we don't have it for a reason, it's not just coincidence. In the NT the only reason for divorce seems to be adultery because it fractures the one flesh. If a man marries X and becomes one flesh with her, then what happens when he marries Y and Z, does he become one flesh with them and all three with eachother? Polygamy was permitted in the OT as a concession to human weakness as were concubines. Marriage signifies Christ and the Church, and the church is a collective, it's not Christ married to millions of souls (that would be very polygamist!) but Christ married to his one bride. When I said "married in God's eyes" I was trying to avoid any human idea of marriage whether in Texas or anywhere else.

I DO agree the kids are better with their mothers than foster homes but it doesn't make the background to it right. I guess I don't believe in relative morality and if I did I'd have to believe female circumcision and honour killings are acceptable too. The fact that there's a lot of diversity in the world is neither here nor there.

Dollymama said...

Hi Margi,

Sorry for the delay on your comment. I've been out of town.

If you want to discuss any specific verses in the Bible about polygamy, I'd be willing to. Again, although I am not personally an advocate of polygamy, I do not have strong feelings against it. Your opinion about why polygamy was permitted in Old Testament times is one possible reason. I tend to believe that it was a cultural norm and respected as such.

I'm not really following your thinking on relative morality, so don't have anything to say to that at this point.

About diversity in the world: I think that it is very common that when we just have one understanding of what can and should be, we tend to think that it is the only right way for things to be. I enjoy challenging my own thinking about this, and as I learn more about other people, places, cultures, and times in history I have a wider ability to see that "my way" is not the only good way to do things. This is not relative morality. This is just realizing that the world is bigger than the here and now.

Here's something to think about: I know of missionaries to parts of the world where polygamy is the norm. So, in many cases they have a man and his wives and children becoming Christians. Now what should happen? What should the man do with his multiple wives? Should he abandon all but the first wife and deny the other wives a husband, children, and so forth? This is particularly complicated by cultures where childbearing is considered extremely important. It is not a simple situation.

Again, just to bring the issue back around to what I care about the most--Americans are supposed to be free from religious persecution, and are not supposed to be having their children taken away because of their religious beliefs. I noticed on your blog profile that you are not living in America, so maybe that issue is not as much on your radar as it is on mine.

Thanks for the conversation. I enjoy it when people get talking here, even if we don't agree. :)