[mikro]

I fully support it and think the GOVERNMENT needs to get out of the marriage business all together anyway. The government should sanction civil unions for all and for the sole purposes needed by the newly united and the government. Anyone who wishes to have a "Marriage" sanctioned by a minister for religious purposes should then go and have that ceremony separately above and beyond the civil union required by the government.

What is it about a "Wall of separation" that no one seems to understand?

This is and will forever be a Secular nation.

[seacapt]

You guys probably ought to do a little research and check your facts!

... well, gee, I thought it had something to do with all those young unmarried Scandinavian blonds the Mormons recruited to come out to Utah... after Brigham saw a few of these he had a message from God to the effect that he needed to marry a couple of them

Nope polygamy started long before they got to Utah and European converts stared settleng there.

Just a small point on the modern day offshoot Morman and I suppose other poly practitioners; the families frequently end up with large families because "God told them to screw like rabbits" and end up all on welfare. They also frequently end up leading isolated lives not to speak of the cult aspects and child-young adult abuse in these situations. There are plenty of examples of escapees from these situations. Do I want to pay for this, hell no.

The sheep on the hill are looking very worried.

Thank you for identifying the cult groups who use the term Mormon to justify their lifestyle as off shoots because they in fact have no ties with and are not accepted by the Mormon Church.

It was a pretty convenient bolt from the blue for Old Brigham, there, wasn't it?

The man led a pretty interesting life maybe you should check his biography some time.

Yeah, aint bein' a prophet wonderful??? Want something a bit wild? Just act like you are listening to someone who isn't there and maybe drool a little and bang... a vision which your followers are bound by their faith to honor... what a racket.

Mike I'm sorry but I find this comment completely disrespectful to any members of the Mormon Church.
BTW it don't work like that.


For the record I'm most definetly not a member of the Mormon Church but am very close to some people who are. I find it amazing how much misiformation and negativity is directed toward this group of people.

[mikro]

Mike I'm sorry but I find this comment completely disrespectful to any members of the Mormon Church.
BTW it don't work like that.


For the record I'm most definetly not a member of the Mormon Church but am very close to some people who are. I find it amazing how much misiformation and negativity is directed toward this group of people.

How does it work then?

[mikemike]

How does it work then?

South park did an excellent job explaining mormonism.

South Park Episode Player - South Park: All About the Mormons?

[Phil1]

"They are on the dole because the extra "wives" are not considered married and therefore don't have the income from the other spouse attributed to them. Legalizing it will mean you are LESS likely to pay for it.

For other legal reasons I have stated, I'm not advocating changing the law to legalize polygamy, but welfare fraud is more likely to be reduced if these relationships become overt."

Maybe I'm dense, I don't follow that thought. One father, 7 mothers, 14 kids very likely means welfare, everybody married or not. It seems vigorus enforcement of child support laws and manditory work/jail would be a good birth control method and deterrant. I don't wish to pay for any of this nonsense.

[GeneV]

"They are on the dole because the extra "wives" are not considered married and therefore don't have the income from the other spouse attributed to them. Legalizing it will mean you are LESS likely to pay for it.

For other legal reasons I have stated, I'm not advocating changing the law to legalize polygamy, but welfare fraud is more likely to be reduced if these relationships become overt."

Maybe I'm dense, I don't follow that thought. One father, 7 mothers, 14 kids very likely means welfare, everybody married or not. It seems vigorus enforcement of child support laws and manditory work/jail would be a good birth control method and deterrant. I don't wish to pay for any of this nonsense.

If you are arguing for birth control, I'm with you. Vigorous enforcement of child support laws is also a good thing. However, people are already free to procreate infinitely with as many partners as will have them. Unless you change that (and that is a tough one) you can't stop people from multiplying.

Deeming more of the mothers "unwed" just helps to keep the fathers off the hook. That is the way some of these folks are getting welfare now. It is difficult to adjudicate paternity without the cooperation of the mother, and if the mothers choose not to go after the fathers for child support, then they end up with welfare. If the children are born in some kind of a legal relationship, the parental rights are established automatically, and the fathers can't escape responsibility as easily or collusively.

Of course, then the question becomes whether some of these groups would marry even if they could....

[Nesster]

You guys probably ought to do a little research and check your facts!



Nope polygamy started long before they got to Utah and European converts stared settleng there.


Thank you for identifying the cult groups who use the term Mormon to justify their lifestyle as off shoots because they in fact have no ties with and are not accepted by the Mormon Church.



The man led a pretty interesting life maybe you should check his biography some time.


Mike I'm sorry but I find this comment completely disrespectful to any members of the Mormon Church.
BTW it don't work like that.


For the record I'm most definetly not a member of the Mormon Church but am very close to some people who are. I find it amazing how much misiformation and negativity is directed toward this group of people.

Sorry to have caused offense, I was making a joke.

We lived in Utah for a while in the early 80s, and there was a polygamist compound at the end of our block, right in the middle of Salt Lake City, in Sugarhouse.

The official Mormon stance is as you describe, however in practice things are different.

[builttospill]

The official Mormon stance is as you describe, however in practice things are different.

No it's not. I think many people are afraid of things they don't understand, this may be one of them. I'm not sure living in Utah some time ago qualifies you to make a statement that all followers of a religion don't try to practice what they preach. I also understand your experience of Utah might be a little different than mine though. Utah is a great place to live and visit, lots of stuff to see and do outdoors, but just because a religion is headquarted here doesn't mean everybody belongs to it. Just because there is an Olan Mills portrait studio in the Kmart here doesn't mean that's where everyone gets their photo taken. There are more Mormons in California than Utah, but because the headquarters are set up here, and I live here, I often get branded as "different".

I actually thought your joke was funny, but I agree with seacapt Mike's might have been a little much.

[Nesster]

I was not saying the majority of Mormons are polygamists or condone the practice... the practice that I say is different is that in Utah at least, both the church and the government tends to look the other way - every now and then there's a polygamy case, but by and large these are few and far between. Some have explained this as being due to there being family ties, and a certain respect for old ways. I'm no expert, so whatever

The polygamists at the end of our block were well known to all, that they lived there and operated a school was common knowledge, and the police etc never gave them any trouble. If you know SLC, this was on the corner of E 1300 South, a couple of blocks from Liberty Park.

AFAIK the cops did look the other way about the after-dark activities in Liberty Park as well, so maybe it's nothing more than that sort of thing.

[builttospill]

'So, is that intended as an argument for or against legalized polygamy?'

I refuse to pay for other peoples so called optional freedoms. Do your freedoms on your own dime and be responsible. I view this type of welfare as a reward for irresponsible behavior. I understand the stats on this in Utah are heavily biased for these families to be on welfare. A friend was a school teacher and related that all the families she was in contact with through the school were on the dole. No I am not in favor of it being legal. If you are a Saudi prince, knock yourself out.

This country was founded by other people "paying for your optional freedoms." I understand the point you are trying to make though. I don't think this is the norm in Utah for the whole welfare thing. I haven't seen it here much, but I'm sure it exists just like it probably does in your state too, so don't say Utah's so heavily biased without backing it up.

But let's take your angle for argument's sake to continue the initial discussion. I also agree the OP's comparisons aren't exactly related. But why do we need to legalize same-sex marriage? That's what you call an optional freedom. Under our system the law defines marriage as a union between man and woman. A gay person has every right to be married just like a straight person. But when the system affords extra rights, or "optional freedoms" to a group of people, I don't see it being any different as paying higher taxes to feed and educate illegal immigrants or failed rehabilitation of prison inmates in their luxurious prison suite. A straight community has never denied the right of a gay person to be married. It's not a level playing field but we can at least try to give everyone the same opportunities in America.

---------- Post added 08-17-10 at 08:24 AM ----------

I was not saying the majority of Mormons are polygamists or condone the practice... the practice that I say is different is that in Utah at least, both the church and the government tends to look the other way - every now and then there's a polygamy case, but by and large these are few and far between. Some have explained this as being due to there being family ties, and a certain respect for old ways. I'm no expert, so whatever

The polygamists at the end of our block were well known to all, that they lived there and operated a school was common knowledge, and the police etc never gave them any trouble. If you know SLC, this was on the corner of E 1300 South, a couple of blocks from Liberty Park.

AFAIK the cops did look the other way about the after-dark activities in Liberty Park as well, so maybe it's nothing more than that sort of thing.

Yeah, I think you're right. There are cities here in Utah where some gated communities contain polygamist families. They are typically out in the middle of no where though, and as long as they don't bother anyone else, people look the other way. Maybe that's part of the reason the raids in Arizona was such a big deal. The reason I responded to your post was because these polygamists are no way affiliated with the Mormons and never have been. Just wanted to keep that straight.

But Sugarhouse is a nice area, and I'm familiar with the area.

[MRRiley]

Ken,

I'm sorry, I did not mean it to be disrespectful of Mormons in particular. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young at least did no overt harm to their followers, but as a result of their presumed priesthood and special relationship with god, they could pretty much say whatever they wanted. Maybe they believed themselves, in fact I suspect they probably did, but as humans, I would be highly skeptical that they didn't sneak in the occasional personal idea of their own.

The thing is, not all religious leaders are in the mold of Smith or Young. Some, like Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite or David Koresh inspire such sick devotion that their followers are willing to kill themselves and their children all on a word from their "prophet." Then you have leaders such as Fred Phelps who has his followers (mostly family) picket military funerals praising the fallen soldier's death as a sign that god hates America because we have gay citizens.

Why do I feel this way about "prophets?" Could have a lot to do with the fact that 2 good friends of mine from college ended up in a cult in, well I'm not gonna say where it was, and they and their children only escaped after the "prophet" died. This was a small cult, maybe 50-60 adult followers (plus children). They didn't live in a compound or anything but they held nightly church services and each family was expected to hand over half of their earnings (before expenses) to the "prophet." As a result, the vast majority of the families lived in abject poverty (despite well paying professional jobs) while the "prophet." lived in the largest house in town (which also adjoined the warehouse they used as a church). The worst thing though was that the "prophet" was free to enjoy the services of each wife twice a year. There were never any charges of child molestation, they did say that at least 6 young couples married in the church and the "prophet" claimed what used to be called "prima nocta" aka "first night" each time after performing the marriage ceremony. So how did they escape... This particular "prophet" was so controlling that he left no successor and when he died of a massive coronary, the cult just sort of evaporated. no doubt several of the followers formed their own smaller versions or moved to other cults, but my friends said they felt like they were waking up for the first time in 20 years. They are still in therapy after several years and I suspect will be for the rest of their lives.

Again, not comparing this "prophet" to Smith or Young, just explaining the extent to which some people will go to follow their religious leaders and the liberties they will grant them based on their "faith."

p.s. As a footnote... my friend's oldest daughter got married 2 years ago. Had they still been in the cult, the "prophet" would have enjoyed her services like any other wife (including prima nocta). And the scary thing is... My friend said he would have not only let it happen but in the state of mind he was in he would have expected it of her. He cried like a baby at the wedding when he realized what might have been.

[JeffJS]

George Jones? Do you mean Jim Jones?

[MRRiley]

A straight community has never denied the right of a gay person to be married. It's not a level playing field but we can at least try to give everyone the same opportunities in America.

Ok, so in order to get married a gay man has to marry a woman, a person to whom he has no emotional or physical attraction. But since he is perfectly free to marry her and enjoy the rights of marriage, you say he has equal rights. I submit that you are mistaken.

What is it that you people don't get? Allowing straight people to marry a person to whom they are emotionally and physically attracted is ok, but allowing a gay person to do the same is not. This is the inequality. You or I can marry someone who we want to make love to... yet you want to deny that right to our gay citizens.... Removing gender requirements from the marriage equation does not create a special right for gays, it simply and truly levels the "playing field."


>---------- Post added 08-17-10 at 10:56 AM ---------->

George Jones? Do you mean Jim Jones?

Right you are Jeff.... LOL George Jones was a good guy.... Jim, not so much!

Ken,

I'm sorry, I did not mean it to be disrespectful of Mormons in particular. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young at least did no overt harm to their followers, but as a result of their presumed priesthood and special relationship with god, they could pretty much say whatever they wanted. Maybe they believed themselves, in fact I suspect they probably did, but as humans, I would be highly skeptical that they didn't sneak in the occasional personal idea of their own.

The thing is, not all religious leaders are in the mold of Smith or Young. Some, like Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite or David Koresh inspire such sick devotion that their followers are willing to kill themselves and their children all on a word from their "prophet." Then you have leaders such as Fred Phelps who has his followers (mostly family) picket military funerals praising the fallen soldier's death as a sign that god hates America because we have gay citizens.

Why do I feel this way about "prophets?" Could have a lot to do with the fact that 2 good friends of mine from college ended up in a cult in, well I'm not gonna say where it was, and they and their children only escaped after the "prophet" died. This was a small cult, maybe 50-60 adult followers (plus children). They didn't live in a compound or anything but they held nightly church services and each family was expected to hand over half of their earnings (before expenses) to the "prophet." As a result, the vast majority of the families lived in abject poverty (despite well paying professional jobs) while the "prophet." lived in the largest house in town (which also adjoined the warehouse they used as a church). The worst thing though was that the "prophet" was free to enjoy the services of each wife twice a year. There were never any charges of child molestation, they did say that at least 6 young couples married in the church and the "prophet" claimed what used to be called "prima nocta" aka "first night" each time after performing the marriage ceremony. So how did they escape... This particular "prophet" was so controlling that he left no successor and when he died of a massive coronary, the cult just sort of evaporated. no doubt several of the followers formed their own smaller versions or moved to other cults, but my friends said they felt like they were waking up for the first time in 20 years. They are still in therapy after several years and I suspect will be for the rest of their lives.

Again, not comparing this "prophet" to Smith or Young, just explaining the extent to which some people will go to follow their religious leaders and the liberties they will grant them based on their "faith."

Heart breaking. I cannot imagine how painful it must have been to watch as your friends became entangled in such a horrible situation.

[MRRiley]

The heart breaking thing Todd, was that we knew little if any of this while it was going on. We knew they were involved in a small church and that they were pretty bad off financially, but as they lived half a country away we rarely saw them except for the couple of times that they visited his parents (who also knew next to nothing). Had I known, I would done my level best to extract them from the situation, but I'd have probably failed miserably and driven them in deeper. We only learned the full and ugly truth about 5 years ago. They've moved much closer though and we see them fairly frequently. They both still have a hard time looking us in the face but they also know we are here to support them in whatever they need.