|
|
Post by JJ77 on Jan 29, 2010 22:03:29 GMT -5
I couldnt decide where this thread should go, so decided to put it here - since it is kind of seperate from the show.
I have been doing some reading about lds, flds , and polygamy.
While the show is what piqued my interest the real life drama of these groups has proved even more interesting IMO.
First of all, I wondered if anyone else here has done any research or reading on the subject?
More specifically , I wondered what your general thoughts on the subject of polygamy within the flds are?
Do you beleive these people are a cult? or just a religious sect that's different from others and therefore misunderstood / stereotyped?
|
|
|
|
Post by JJ77 on Jan 30, 2010 0:18:02 GMT -5
My thoughts on FLDS
While I have been doing some basic reading and reasearch on subjects mormon ; lds, flds, polygamy - I am by far not an expert. In fact, there are probably people you know personally who know much more than I on the subject. That said, I have been making an effort to educate myself and to remain objective and open minded as i digest the info i've found ; both online and in books.
My interest in the subject began with the HBO series "Big Love". I had never thought of polygamy as something that occured in the US or in this day and age. My only known interaction / exposure to mormons was a couple of kids who kept knocking on my door trying to spread the word of the Latter Day Saints. They seemed like nice enough kids so my hesitance in bluntly telling them to "Get lost" (or worse) led them back to my door on several occasions. Then there were the raids on the Texas Compound, so highly publicized it even made the news in my neck of the woods. (The midwest) I was as shocked by the images of women in priarie garb with huge poofs for hair, as i was at the idea that so many children could have been abused (in any form; emotional, physical, sexual) and the idea of "child brides". My interest was piqued when a friend (who knew i watched "Big Love") called and told me to put on Oprah - and i caught her hour long show about warren Jeffs and the texas compound.
While my efforts to educate myself on the subject have been minimal at this point, I still have gained some knowledge on the history of mormons in america and the genral beleifs of both the lds and flds. As such, I have also begun to form some preliminary opinions on both.
While I do beleive that the LDS ended polygamy for poitically based reasons,i dont think that it's fair to say that based on that fact most mainstream mormons would choose to practice it today if given that choice by their church or the law. So I think their general frustration at being viewed as "pligy's" is justified.
I also can understand how the church was divided by this matter. I'm sure that those who were already living a polygamous life, being told to do so by their religion, had a hard time accepting the churches politically based reasoning to bring it to an end. I imagine many of those people thought the church had went against god's word and folded in the face of extreme opposition by the government.
Thus we end up with essentially two different churches ; the old school and the new school (flds & lds) that are linked by their roots.
One (FLDS) chose to stick to the polygamous lifestyle despite the goverment and subsequent church opposition. The other (LDS) trying to mainstream and shed the image of their polygamous past.
Before this split occured, and even before the lds began to pratice polygamy - the main reason those outside their faith opposed them so greatly was due to the biggest difference between mormons and other christians. The mormon's beleived they had a direct line to God (in the form of their prophet). They beleived that just as in biblical days when god revealed himself to the apostles, their prophet received revelations directly from God. In short, their prophet was a go-between between them and god & their prophets word was heeded as the word of God.
Without getting into a philosophical debate on this matter - I will say that from my perspective this is where all the trouble truly started & is the basis for the issues most have with the FLDS to this day.Even if we assume that Joseph Smith (their founder) truly did receive relevations from God - must we then beleive that every church leader there after was also given this direct line ? Apparently if you are a member of the FLDS that's exactly what you beleive, or atleast are taught.
Given that fact, I think entirely too much power is given to the leaders of the flds. Their followers while maybe not "brainwashed" are in fact under the rule of men who claim to be speaking on god's behalf. If you beelive that, how can you go against their wishes in good concience? If you're born / raised FLDS then chances are you do beeive that- as it is taught from day one.
The original basis for their self reliance and sepration from the outside world was based on living a wholesome life, a real sense of community, etc. (admirable things to reach for IMO) however, it is also my opinion that along the way this isloation coupled with leaders who wer eless than godly has played a major role in keeping those inside from having a real choice in their beleifs.
On that note, i do beleive the flds is cult-ish. On that same note, I also beleive that those inside the flds feel they have a choice, for lack of knowing anything else.
Are they ever given a choice ? Or the opportunity to experience life on the outside without judgement by those inside? What option do these people (women especially) have ?
Those are real questions- not rhetorical. I would be interested in answers if anyone has them?
|
|
|
|
Post by aliensummer on Jan 30, 2010 10:38:00 GMT -5
I just have to add this in because the use of the term cult when used improperly (as it normally is) really bothers me for some reason.
Cult is normally used very negatively and as a way of putting down someone's faith and beliefs. For example, when people call LDS or FLDS a "cult", they're essentially saying that their faith is of little consequence because they're believing something false and have probably been "brainwashed" (which is another term that REALLY gets me mad because most people who use it don't know anything about the term). (By the way, I'm not saying that's what you're doing here, since I think you have handled the situation and terms fairly well and didn't put down anyone by using them the way that you have, but I've seen this conversation change SO quickly by other people, so I want to get in on this early on in the conversation).
A cult is really just a religion or sect of a larger religion that is not mainstream. Most of the major world religions started out as cults, and were considered such by the people who were around during their birth, such as Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. As the groups gain recognition from the mainstream, they slowly become churches, sects, and eventually can become religions. Of course, not all cults want this, and not all cults will ever move past being a cult.
So, with that being said, FLDS is by definition a cult. This does NOT make it a bad thing, as I'm sure most people would say that the major world religions today are not bad things. However, any religious group, large or small, can have problems when the power of the group is put in the wrong hands, and/or when they become isolated (but remember, those qualities do not have to be present to make the group a cult, and are not isolated to just cults).
Ok, so I'm going to respond with a different post to the questions. I just had to get that out there. As a student of sociology and religious studies, I get kind of passionate about stuff like this, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhinestone_cowgirl on Jan 30, 2010 11:17:30 GMT -5
I have a huge interest in these breakaway mormon groups, although it isn't well known the majority of those who founded both the LDS and FLDS (and even other groups like the Kingstons) either came directly from England, or from English stock. At least two of the original founders of the FLDS came from the same area in Northern England where I am from (now greater Manchester, formerly split into Lancashire and Cheshire); and in those areas the mainstream LDS, as well as the reorganised branch, still have a lot of followers. The more common FLDS surnames, Jessop, Barlow, Jeffs, Broadbent et al are still pretty common in those areas. Jason Orange of the boyband Take That grew up mainstream LDS: though his family left the church in his teens. I always found it rather odd as to me LDS is a very Americo-centric religion, doctrine wise, although I can understand the reason for some in the area where I am from, may be that many of the mormon forefathers came from those same areas and went as pioneers for the faith to the US.
I do think the FLDS are cultish, and when Warren Jeffs came into power things did seem to take more of a sinister turn. Having said that from what I've read they didn't just start marrying extremely young girls when Jeffs Jr. came into power; but they were marrying 9 year olds and up when Short Creek was founded. I do admire in some ways their self-sufficent lifestyle and sense of community, I actually wouldn't mind living in a compound/commune type environment as theoretically everyone is looked after and materialism goes out of the window; but so often these things don't live up to the original ideal.
I do think they have a choice but being raised the way they are, educated only up to a maximum of 7th grade level and so on; their intellectual abilities to make those choices has been stifled somewhat so while I believe they have all made the decision to live and stay there its not really an 'informed' decision if you see what I'm saying.
Sophie
|
|
|
|
Post by aliensummer on Jan 30, 2010 11:22:53 GMT -5
Which, when you think about it, is very similar to what Catholics believe when it comes to the Pope.
I think when it comes down to it, it has to be one of those things that you just have to disagree with. There's no way of proving that talking to God doesn't work that way.
I think it's hard for anyone who has been raised in a religious belief to go against in, in good conscience. Most Christian religions make it clear that you have to be a Christian to get into Heaven. If you were raised to believe this, then even questioning your faith can be rather unsettling if you were socialized to believe that the alternative to Christianity is eternal damnation.
A good example of this kind of dilemma, in my opinion, has been demonstrated through the same-sex marriage/homosexuality issue that has been brought to light more recently. Several homosexuals have gotten married into heterosexual marriages because they were told to do otherwise would equal sin, which in turn would lead to Hell. I had a friend who told me that while she personally didn't see anything wrong with homosexuality, but she was against same-sex marriage because her church said it was a bad thing. While I don't remember her exact denomination, she's not Catholic or LDS, and she doesn't live an isolated life that's controlled by a male leader. She was simply socialized to believe that her church has the correct answers.
I think the FLDS just makes us more skirmish about it because they are isolated, are very patriarchal, and much more conservative than mainstream values. In other words, they stand out more in their beliefs.
The problem that I have with this question is that we're taking away what they're saying (which is that they have a choice), and saying that they don't have a choice and just can't see that. This is a loaded question that often gets asked in regards to the cults that no one likes. No one really knows how much of a "choice" they really have, except for those inside the community.
Do they have the opportunity to experience life on the inside without judgment by those on the outside?
|
|
|
|
Post by thetrueprophet on Jan 30, 2010 13:39:45 GMT -5
"Compounds, Communities, Ranch's and Campus's" are AWFUL to live on unless you are a big shot. If you are on top, closely related to the leadership or on the dearest of terms with the leadership then it is not so bad. If you are the average Joe it is just awful. It should not be this way, but it is the nature of mankind. Nearly every "community" becomes corrupted once it is too big or has been around for too long. Do not get me wrong, people of my mindset can and should separate ourselves from the outside world. "Come out from among them and be ye separate", however it is my line of thinking that smaller family oriented communities are better than outright compounds. I grew up in a cult compound until I was 8...it was not FLDS, but another similar "fundie cult". To many of you I am still a fundamentalist and in some ways I still am...stuck between your world and theirs.
I did want to mention a few things in regards to education. The educational system is quite different in cult environments than it is in the "outside" world. The educational emphasis is entirely different. Many fundamentalists will put a greater emphasis on theology and creationism rather than the traditional science, literature and history. Depending upon the cult of course. Some only educate children until the 8th grade (which was actually the norm for the rest of the US until the early 20th century). This may seem ridiculously inadequate, but before you judge, take a look at the materials covered. Some fundamentalist schools and home schoolers cover materials by the 8th grade that are far superior to their public school counterparts, while others are a joke and mockery. US public schools in reality are pitiful in regards to a quality education. I am not speaking out of ignorance here; I am a Biologist currently working as an educator in the US public educational system. The class time is too short; we are constantly interrupted by pep rallies, prom planning, social events and disruptive students who should be removed from the mainstream. We must deal with the trouble students though as best we can because of all the "no child left behind" nonsense. Although in reality, that one child drags the rest of them behind. Ok, enough ranting....I will try to play nice now =P.
|
|
ladykc
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ladykc on Jan 30, 2010 21:45:29 GMT -5
To me, a cult is a group that denies the individual freedom of thought and of choice. You can be religious and still have the freedom to question and think (in some religions, anyway!). Also, to me a cult is a group that imprisons or isolates its members from the rest of society.
I think if FLDS were so confident that their way of life is the best and most rewarding, they wouldn't need to isolate their members so much from the outside world, especially the women.
Interesting to compare them to the Amish, who are also a community apart and have distinctive dress and lifestyle. But when Amish people are young adults, they are given the choice to go out and experience the outside world, and then they can choose to remain there or to return. I think this is because the Amish have confidence that their way of life is a fulfilling and happy one, and most of the members choose to return to the community.
I think ultimately FLDS does not offer happiness and contentment to the majority of its members. A few high-ranking men might be happy. But the women are essentially property and the most of the men have to be shoved out of the community so that a few men can have many wives.
I'm trying to imagine being an FLDS woman, raising a son until he is a young man and then seeing him dumped on the side of the road when he becomes a threat to the older men in the community. How awful!
|
|
|
|
Post by rhinestone_cowgirl on Jan 31, 2010 3:00:30 GMT -5
...And thats the thing; I am actually pro-polygamy and personally know both Muslims and Christians in happy polygamous marriages; but the whole model of men having to have at least three wives, as almost a religious requirement; just doesn't make any sense logically. There simply would never be enough women in the community, any community and the result is competition for the women that there are, forcing any young men who are seen as competition, out.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJ77 on Jan 31, 2010 17:07:39 GMT -5
Dont have time (right this moment) to touch on all the great points that have been made so far. (so I'll jump back later) I did want to quickly touch on a few things though.
While i do undertsand that the word "cult" is technically misused - ladykc's defnition is also (basically) my own take on the word.
She also brought up a point that really gets to the heart of what I was attempting to ask - are those within these flds compounds ever given the freedom to choose the religion they are born into (or event o question it) for themsleves? The reference to the amish is releveant , and i guess what I was thinking of when i asked this question. The period that amish teens are given to experience life outside their tight knit community is called "rumspringa". It's basically an opportunity to test the waters without judgement / without being shunned by their community. It's based on the amish beleif that children should not be baptised b/c they dont have the ability to truly "choose" the faith and life they are being baptised into. once someone does choose to be baptised int heir community though- it's a committment that is taken very seriously and behavior in contrary tot heir beleifs will lead to the member being shunned / excommunicated.
It's the "choice", or lack of, that i personally have an issue with as far as the flds goes.
do i beelive most , or even many would decide to leave or adopt some other religion? probably not, but some would. As much as the flds says it is persecuted on the basis of their religion and states it is their right to freedom of religion that is being persecuted... how much freedom (in that same regard) do they really allow those within the flds?
As i stated before, I'm not an expert... i still have many questions and my opinions (due to that) are preliminary at best. At this point though, that's the main question I have, and the part i take issue with.
|
|
ladykc
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by ladykc on Jan 31, 2010 23:14:27 GMT -5
I've been meaning to see "The Devil's Playground" which is a documentary about Amish teenagers in rumspringa.
I guess you could make the argument that the Amish young people are so steeped in their distinctive way of life and so unprepared for life in the outside world that they don't truly have a choice. Still, at least those who want to leave are given the option.
Can you imagine FLDS allowing young women to run wild as teenagers? They'd lose them all!
And how about maintsteam LDS? Does anyone here see them as a cult?
|
|
|
|
Post by ukdave on Feb 3, 2010 17:06:10 GMT -5
Hi, i just wanted to add my little bit
Cult by definition
Cult pejoratively ( negatively, depreciatively, critically, as a criticism, judgmentally or in a bad way ) refers to a group whose beliefs or practices could be considered strange or sinister.
That just about makes every single one of us a Cult member.
The term was originally used to denote a system of ritual practices. The narrower, derogatory sense of the word is a product of the 20th century, especially since the 1980s, and is a result of the anti-cult movement, which uses the term in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and possibly dangerous.
So from that Wikipedia extract is it fair to class all forms of religion and faith’s as Cult? Regardless of size or is it truly branded only to those that very little is known about tolerated or understood.
I have no religion or faith, and feel proud to admit this; will I be thrown into eternal condemnation? Does this make me different? Do I belong to many Cults?
My knowledge whilst very limited on FLDS, Child brides or Polygamy would be no different than they are for Christians, Catholic, LDS, or Amish this list goes on and on.
I would not criticise those whose beliefs are different purely because they are different, i would love to get facts from FLDS people.
Fascinating subject what a great read
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by BigLoveRocks! on Feb 3, 2010 21:46:05 GMT -5
When I think of Cults...
I think of people like The Heaven's Gate people who wore the nike's and all killed themselves waiting to jump on the Hale Bopp comet for a ride back home...
Or David Koresh who was hiding in a compound with guns and bombs and shit.
Dave I think you are correct in the actual definition of a cult. It is a term that is used loosley at best.
I only think of Polygamy as a cult if there is incest and children involved. If a bunch of consenting adults want to enter into polygamy, as long as no children or incest is involved...I say more power to them. You know? Whatever floats their boat. LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by JJ77 on Feb 9, 2010 18:43:26 GMT -5
I agree completely - I dont mean to criticize anyone for their for beleifs. To each his own.
I will say though that I do have issue with some of the things that go on in the name of religion; child brides used as breeding stock being one of those things. Do I think all flds marry 13 year olds, or even treat their wives as simply "breeder"? no. Do I think it happens more in the flds community than others - yes.
But I do think there is a fine line between taking issue with things that go on within any group and taking issue with the group (religion) as a whole.
I would love to hear from FLDS ppl as well.
|
|
zoar
New Member
Posts: 49
|
Post by zoar on Feb 11, 2010 20:37:15 GMT -5
Since I became a fan of Big Love, I have doing a lot of reading on polygamy especially 19th century LDS polygamy. It is astonishing how much things have changed with polygamy as we see it today. Entering a polygamous union for a woman was voluntary and she was free to leave anytime she wanted without any threats on her life. Men were warned by Brigham Young that if they mistreated their wives, they would be left without wives and children in the next life. There were no lost boys. The church encouraged the young men to marry the daughters of faithful families and start families of their own. Polygamists back then did not live on compounds under a dictatorial prophet. They lived in harmony with monogamous families. They would even worship together. Women were encouraged to better themselves and get an education. If a husband tried to force a woman to obey him and threatened her that if she did not, she would lose her exhaltation; Young told them that it was not true and if a husband behaved that way he would cease to have any priesthood authority.
It really was not until the middle of the 20th century that polygamy among fundamentalists began to change dramatically. If Brigham Young were alive today he would be shocked at what was taking place.
|
|
|
|
Post by JJ77 on Mar 12, 2010 15:23:09 GMT -5
I have heard others stae that as well zoar.
For me, the foudnations of the principle are not necessarily the problem. It's the possible (and as we've seen likelihood) that giving too much power to one person (man / woman) creates too vast margin for misuse of that power.
I think that's basicaly what's happened.
|
|
