Delusions Of Faith

[Chencheya]

Forced to marry a 50-year-old with six wives when just 18 ... One woman's harrowing tale of escaping the Texas polygamist sect | the Daily Mail

Note: I'm not making this thread to bash people of the Latter Day Saints faith, rather making a debate out of the interesting case of the fundamentalist sect of Warren Jeffs (currently in jail in Arizona)

I saw this on the news not so long ago and just found the article in the Daily Fail, so I figured it would do for a new and interesting thread (like so many of my other creations). Now I'm not trying to be insulting to people of faith, but it's probably one of the more chilling stories of recent times that I've read about what faith can do to people, especially when it sets out to isolate, dominate and restrict their members into following such a way of life.

Old men marrying children, women kept constantly pregnant, forcing members to dress into specific dresses that belong in another era, men intoxicated with power and determined to dominate their many wives and children, commonplace beatings for insubordination, the leader deciding whom you get to marry, e.t.c are a few examples of what the fundamentalist aspects were like.

Yeah, I'm probably banging on with the same old dribble I've done since I joined here (feel free to yawn), but to me, this is just one of the many chilling examples of what religion can do to people because of 'faith'.

A quote from the article:

But so strong had my indoctrination been, I still lived by the tenets of our faith, ignoring the questioning voice in my mind.

So, during the next 15 years, I bore my husband, Merril, who had six other wives, no fewer than eight children - five boys and three girls.

I had no alternative than to obey his demands - including treating him like a god.

If I refused, or failed in my tasks, I was punished. My every move was watched, and I was never allowed my own money. I knew I was being controlled and it frightened me.

What is it about religion that does this to people? Not just religion (although it's the most common example in which I see this sort of thing happen), but with certain cultures and ideologies? Why do people let these sort of things happen to them, and do you know the difference between just being faithful, when you may actually be brainwashed? Carolyn Jessop, like many others of her faith, believed this was their place in the world and that to their faith, they were doing the right thing, when clearly to us, it's just so.... wrong. And yet, they were just as faithful as other people are to their own religions and ideologies, so how do you know you're right?

Discuss.

[GarmGarf]

One of the details of Mormonism that I detest is the roles assigned to the genders. I'm not sure if polygamy is present in all areas of Mormonism, but regardless, man is head of the home, and woman is second, or so I believe that is how it goes.

[Rew]

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

One of the details of Mormonism that I detest is the roles assigned to the genders. I'm not sure if polygamy is present in all areas of Mormonism, but regardless, man is head of the home, and woman is second, or so I believe that is how it goes.

Mormonism started out as a universally polygamous sect, but nowadays only very fringe elements of Mormonism practice polygamy, whereas mainstream Mormonism (i.e. the average Mormon you meet on the street) will practice monogamy just like any other American (or western world person). As for your quarrel with the gender roles, that's not exclusive to Mormonism but is prevalent in nearly all conservative versions of Christianity (i.e. evangelicalism), Islam, and I think Judaism. Please note that I'm not saying all Christians, Muslims, and Jews espouse patriarchal gender roles, but only the more conservative sects within those religions. (Also, I'm sure it's not restricted to those three religions alone, but I know too little about other religions to comment.) Moreover, the more liberal strands of those faiths will put greater emphasis on egalitarianism between the two genders, FTR.

[Alaik]

It should also be clarified that in fundamental Christianity, husband and wife are functionally different, i.e. the man leads the home and the wife supports, but positionally equal. It's not really inequality or sexism- There are merely roles to be filled within the family.

Eph. 5:22
Wives, Submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

The directive to husbands is even more imposing. Paul commands husbands to love by employing agapate, which means he has the responsibility to exude all the qualities of the Love of God (Agape) explained in 1 Corinthians 13 towards his wife.

[GDwarf]

Alaik, artificially confining people to gender-roles is sexism.

[Alaik]

I suppose that depends on your definition. What I'm referring to here, and I hope it's what GarmGarf is referring to, is ascribing a certain value based upon gender. That's why I'm clarifying that there is no (or should not be, based upon scripture) value placement in most Fundamental Christian circles when it comes to marriage. The Bible doesn't say " The man is of higher value than the woman". Instead, it states functions, and I don't think function always indicates value.
Think of a sports team, football for example. Is the quarterback more important than the linebacker? No, but the quarterback is traditionally assigned the position of leadership within the team, not because he is more valuable than the linebacker, but because he has characteristics that qualify him to be in that position of leadership.
Excuse my quaint illustration , but I think it relates well to the family. There are different functions, however the husband and the wife are equal.

[GarmGarf]

Originally Posted by Rew

Mormonism started out as a universally polygamous sect, but nowadays only very fringe elements of Mormonism practice polygamy, whereas mainstream Mormonism (i.e. the average Mormon you meet on the street) will practice monogamy just like any other American (or western world person). As for your quarrel with the gender roles, that's not exclusive to Mormonism but is prevalent in nearly all conservative versions of Christianity (i.e. evangelicalism), Islam, and I think Judaism. Please note that I'm not saying all Christians, Muslims, and Jews espouse patriarchal gender roles, but only the more conservative sects within those religions. (Also, I'm sure it's not restricted to those three religions alone, but I know too little about other religions to comment.) Moreover, the more liberal strands of those faiths will put greater emphasis on egalitarianism between the two genders, FTR.

I couldn't say "one of the details of Christianity that I detest is the roles assigned to the genders", because not all sects of Christianity assign roles to genders.

Originally Posted by Alaik

I suppose that depends on your definition. What I'm referring to here, and I hope it's what GarmGarf is referring to, is ascribing a certain value based upon gender.

You had false hope. It is like saying that women should be McDonald's workers, while men should be the managers, even though they get the same pay. The same pay, or "worth" doesn't cut it.

[Knightmare_63]

The world is a scary place.

Originally Posted by Rew

Mormonism started out as a universally polygamous sect, but nowadays only very fringe elements of Mormonism practice polygamy, whereas mainstream Mormonism (i.e. the average Mormon you meet on the street) will practice monogamy just like any other American (or western world person). As for your quarrel with the gender roles, that's not exclusive to Mormonism but is prevalent in nearly all conservative versions of Christianity (i.e. evangelicalism), Islam, and I think Judaism. Please note that I'm not saying all Christians, Muslims, and Jews espouse patriarchal gender roles, but only the more conservative sects within those religions. (Also, I'm sure it's not restricted to those three religions alone, but I know too little about other religions to comment.) Moreover, the more liberal strands of those faiths will put greater emphasis on egalitarianism between the two genders, FTR.

Right as always Rew!!!! ^_^
I don't see anyone else that did their homework.

However, my question is: Who holds the preisthood?

[Rew]

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

I couldn't say "one of the details of Christianity that I detest is the roles assigned to the genders", because not all sects of Christianity assign roles to genders.

Of course. That's why I clarified for you, and said particularly conservative strands of Christianity assign these gender roles.

EDIT: Thanks knightmare! Hmm...what do you mean by "priesthood," though?

[Knightmare_63]

Originally Posted by Rew

EDIT: Thanks knightmare! Hmm...what do you mean by "priesthood," though?

Welcome!! ^_^

But anywho,
ask any mormon and you'll find that only men can hold the preisthood.
Or be a prophet or bless people for that matter.
Believe me, I live with five of them, in a mormon covered city.
I'm pagan however.

[Rew]

Originally Posted by Knightmare_63

Welcome!! ^_^

But anywho,
ask any mormon and you'll find that only men can hold the preisthood.
Or be a prophet or bless people for that matter.
Believe me, I live with five of them, in a mormon covered city.
I'm pagan however.

You'll be glad to know that in the Anglican/Episcopal Church, we have a saying: Male and female God created them. Male and female we ordain them.

[Knightmare_63]

Originally Posted by Rew

You'll be glad to know that in the Anglican/Episcopal Church, we have a saying: Male and female God created them. Male and female we ordain them.

You are now the most respected person to me,
besides meh adopter.....
Thanks.

[GarmGarf]

Originally Posted by Rew

Of course. That's why I clarified for you, and said particularly conservative strands of Christianity assign these gender roles.

Yay, thanks!

But anyway, it is ridiculous that females can't be priests. What is the reason for this? A sexist God?

[Knightmare_63]

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Yay, thanks!

But anyway, it is ridiculous that females can't be priests. What is the reason for this? A sexist God?

No, a male god apparently.

[GarmGarf]

Originally Posted by Knightmare_63

No, a male god apparently.

Well, I am not sure where your view lies on this, but I believe that God is asexual.

[Rew]

Originally Posted by Knightmare_63

You are now the most respected person to me,
besides meh adopter.....
Thanks.

Well, since your adopter is the one and only Shadow Seeker, I'm quite content to play second fiddle to him.

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

Yay, thanks!

But anyway, it is ridiculous that females can't be priests. What is the reason for this? A sexist God?

Well, in my church, they can be priests!

As for the more conservative churches that don't allow it, they do have their reasons, none of which are terribly persuasive to me, though. Heck, now that I think about it, even in my most conservative evangelical days a few years ago, even then I wasn't completely convinced that women should be barred from the ministry either. *shrug*

[GarmGarf]

Originally Posted by Rew

Well, in my church, they can be priests!

As for the more conservative churches that don't allow it, they do have their reasons, none of which are terribly persuasive to me, though. Heck, now that I think about it, even in my most conservative evangelical days a few years ago, even then I wasn't completely convinced that women should be barred from the ministry either. *shrug*

Although I am not technically Jewish (I have not had a Bar Mitzvah or Jewish confirmation), I am quite spiritually Reform Jewish, and Reform Judaism allows Rabbis of both genders.

[Alaik]

Originally Posted by GarmGarf

You had false hope. It is like saying that women should be McDonald's workers, while men should be the managers, even though they get the same pay. The same pay, or "worth" doesn't cut it.

Not really. Company standing is far different than a husband and a wife. Also, pay isn't exactly the issue. I avoided using company standing as an illustration because there are too many inconsistencies between it and a husband/wife relationship.
You see, a manager in a company has clear benefits over a regular employee, most prominently in terms of pay. It doesn't work that way in the family. In fact, there are no clear benefits to being a Christian husband. Some might say leadership itself is a benefit, but that's really debatable, since not all people enjoy leadership. Some might also say that leadership is a way for the husband to use his wife for his own benefit. However, if you follow the entire teaching about husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22-29, you'll find that the husband cannot do that, and that his responsibility is to his wife, to love and cherish her. Any deviation from (or misuse of) this teaching very well could be used unfairly by a husband for his own selfish means. That being said, you can't judge a doctrine by its deviants or heretics.

Check this out. Genesis 2:18 says:

And the LORD God said, " It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

This verse strengthens my point. " helper comparable to him" comes from the words " ezer kenegdo" in Hebrew, which means " helper corresponding to man". Some even speculate the meaning refers to "strength" or "power", so in this case it would be translated " a power corresponding to man." This term " helper" is also used when referring to God himself in Psalm 33:20. So it seems that the woman is of equal worth as man, again merely differing in function. the term "helper" we see here is not demeaning.
One does not lose value as a person by assuming the role of a helper. Far from it! The woman is the perfect counterpart to man.

[GDwarf]

Originally Posted by Alaik

I suppose that depends on your definition. What I'm referring to here, and I hope it's what GarmGarf is referring to, is ascribing a certain value based upon gender. That's why I'm clarifying that there is no (or should not be, based upon scripture) value placement in most Fundamental Christian circles when it comes to marriage. The Bible doesn't say " The man is of higher value than the woman". Instead, it states functions, and I don't think function always indicates value.

It's still, literally, saying that a woman's place is in the home, no matter what she may feel about that.

Think of a sports team, football for example. Is the quarterback more important than the linebacker? No, but the quarterback is traditionally assigned the position of leadership within the team, not because he is more valuable than the linebacker, but because he has characteristics that qualify him to be in that position of leadership.
Excuse my quaint illustration , but I think it relates well to the family. There are different functions, however the husband and the wife are equal.

But why have any limits imposed on the functions? Doing so is an inherent value judgment, it is saying that women aren't good at leadership, that they aren't good at working that, in fact, the only thing they are good at is child-raising and cleaning.

Clearly that is sexist.

[Margar]

Originally Posted by GDwarf

It's still, literally, saying that a woman's place is in the home, no matter what she may feel about that.


But why have any limits imposed on the functions? Doing so is an inherent value judgment, it is saying that women aren't good at leadership, that they aren't good at working that, in fact, the only thing they are good at is child-raising and cleaning.

Clearly that is sexist.

Well if you want to take the lesson of ehp. less literally, you can just look at it as each person having certain roles, and those roles being comlimentary to eachother. it doesn't matter what they are. in one family, it may mean the dad stays home and the mom works, or one person takes care of finances and the other, cleaning..etc etc. the MAIN imortant lesson here is that both people have to be mutually and complimentarily contributing to the welfare of the home, and even though one person gets the leadership position, the two are teammates.


I was thinking about this Jeffs dude and his situation... or rather the women and children's situations... that quote from the woman saying she felt she had no choice but to ignore the little voice of rationality in her... it's especially hard when your faith, at the highest levels, makes you swear on your life that you will not "sympathize" with anyone who speaks against the church. this means that technically, if your own child denies the church, you're commiting a sin if you still associate with them, because the person is literally being controlled by the devil and just being around that person is threatening to your faith. It tears families apart.
Th internal conflict causes many people to be resigned to a life of ether having to pretend to believe and put on a charade, or be ostracized by their family. That can really ruin a person's spiritual and mental well-being, an I'm sure it's something those women experienced at it's highest level. for them, they were stuck in their plight, or else they would be cast out, despized, and probably kept from their children. they'd have NOTHING at all.