Close Topic Options

Were We Like The Flds

We should all be familiar with the FLDS issue in Texas. My question here is that what the church used to be like when plural marriage was practised? I'm not talking about abuse, I'm talking about the way the women look and talk.

Flds The We Were

Maybe the women looked similar but that's about it we certainly dont teach marrying women under age and abuse.

Were We Like The Flds Studies Doctrine Mormon

I am anything but a "relativist". Yet the social reality is that there is no agreed upon absolute age at which a person is considered "of age". I have been places where it was acceptable for 12-year-olds to marry, and they did, with the blessing of the bishop and elders of the Church.

"Abuse" is equally ambiguous. Some people believe they are abused when they are shoved; others cannot see that they have been abused even when they have been punched and bruised. Is there an absolute standard for abuse? Some actions are obviously abusive, of course. But even some sexual actions are perceived as abusive by some, natural by others - victim as well as perpetrator.

Before I condemn someone for marrying "too young", I will have to know more about them personally, and about their culture. Before I buy into charges of abuse, I will need to know more about the people involved, and their understanding of the relationship that outsiders are calling abusive.

Because I have lived in Southwestern states where I saw the Church sanction and bless marriages of 12-year-old girls, and because I have seen cases of women accusing men of physical abuse because they shoved them, I cannot join the anti-FLDS bandwagon.

More serious child abuse occurs outside the FLDS, and with children far younger than 12. If we condemn the FLDS for providing inadequate counseling, education, freedom of choice, then we open the door for others to condemn us for any education that differs from the world consensus, counseling that doesn't fit the world norm, and insufficient freedom - women do not hold the priesthood, do not bless and pass the sacrament, and cannot become apostles or prophets; members must tithe 10% and don't get any back upon retirement; members are ostracized and may be removed if they drink, smoke, or are homosexual. Certain types of persons want to dictate church policy from without the church. If we allow non-FLDS to dictate FLDS policy, then we open the door for others to do the same to us.

Flds The We Were

I believe what I said was...

I was hoping for answers that did not focus on the current investigations.

Flds The We Were

I am not sure what you mean by this. There is social reality as to agreed upon age of marriage. It is fact of law in all 49 states. So yes anyone who marries under that age is breaking social norms and law. Granted that age may differ by culture, state, nation etc. But there is law and we are obligated to follow it.

Are you suggesting that local LDS churches sanctioned 12 year old marriages in the U.S.? Are you talking this decade? I would find that hard to believe, but if so then they are most likely breaking the law. It does not make it right.

Abuse is a serious allegation to make and not to make. We can just be as serious not to make the allegation as making it. Again another idea defined by law. Granted abuse laws have changed in the U.S. over the recent years, but again law is law, not a matter of opinion and perspective.
I think that it is a stretch to put curbing abuse with stopping religious rites like tithing, and priesthood. if the FLDS are guilty of such things as abuse and under age marriage then they are subject to the law. Remember our article of faith we are subject to law. I am not saying that such things are happening there, I will let the courts decide on that. But that is just how I feel on the matter.

Were We Like The Flds

LDS rebut N.Y. Times Web article

The historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took issue Monday with a New York Times opinion piece comparing FLDS polygamists in Texas to 19th century Mormons. In a statement released Monday, church historian Elder Marlin K. Jensen took exception to author Timothy Egan's portrayal in the Times.

"Mr. Egan's cavalier comparison of FLDS polygamy practices with those of 19th century Latter-day Saints is historically unsupported and simply wrong," wrote Elder Jensen, a member of the church's Quorums of Seventy. "By implication, he also unfairly impugns the integrity of all Latter-day Saint marriages and families, the very institutions they hold most dear."
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695276816,00.html

Were We The Flds

Stavyn, if you're talking about the LDS church, I don't believe you on this. There's no way in your lifetime that the church in the U.S. would sanction 12-year-old marriages. If you've got evidence, then provide it. Otherwise, it seems like you're just blowing smoke.

Were We The Flds Mormon Doctrine Studies

If the age differs by culture, state, nation, etc., it is not agreed upon. That one who marries under the legal, socially accepted age is breaking social norms and the law is tautological. The point is that those norms and those laws are not absolute; they do vary even within the United States. Whatever ages are now considered legal and socially acceptable for marriage, not so many decades ago in the Southwest and in other regions of the U.S. marriages of girls as young as 12 were accepted by the community and "without legal prejudice".

No, I wasn't suggesting that local LDS churches sanctioned 12 year old marriages. I was implying that I had witnessed a wedding at which the bride was 12 years old. The Bishop had no problem with it. I heard no member complain that she was too young, though I suspect some did believe that. No, it was not this decade. It was 1969.

No reason for me to elaborate if you believe to begin with that I am insincere. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

Presumably you know more about these matters (my lifetime and travels, and marriages I have seen) than do I.

Oh, let's not get juvenile. I do not keep records of marriages I witness, and I do not do records searches. I'm sure not going to do one for some common marriage that took place over thirty years ago in a back-water town.

What evidence could I possibly provide anyway? I do not take photos or keep copies of the records of marriages I witness, certainly not for one from over thirty years ago. You have as good as labeled me a liar. So why should you believe any evidence I could present. I might have fabricated it. Just as, if you were challenged to provide evidence for your claim that "there's no way . . . the church in the U.S. would sanction 12-year-old marriages", someone could accuse you of fabricating the evidence. Perhaps not, though, as I suspect evidence you provide for that would be irrefutable. Am I correct?

I was attempting to contribute to the discussion by reporting what I myself had witnessed. I was told it was not uncommon for girls in that area to marry at that age. If, as it seems, the contribution is distasteful, please ignore it.

Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a marriage; why think to make me deny what I have actually seen? I saw it, and God knows I saw it, and however much it conflicts with your idea of what the Church should be like in all ages and places, I dare not deny it.

Message Edited... Persephone: Please look at how we use the Quote Tags here. When you do not use these tags source material that is not your own may appear to be yours when it is not. Also, check your spelling. See our Constructive Posting Policy.