Bertram Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 There is an old, and very true, saying in my country:There is the LAW and there is JUSTICE and neither is synonymous with the other!That is why legal precedent MUST always be contested and not just accepted as a correct interpretation of the LAW!!If you are saying that a women, who is abused by her husband, and calls the Police, cannot testify against him, then I am utterly aghast, if that is "privilege"under your law!Maybe you should have another amendment to the Constitution!
Bertram Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 lds8n't,I was of course stating my opinion of the position in the TRUE CHURCH.In any other group I would probably be naive, but I would assume, as posted on another thread, that abuse, mental or physical, should have protection under the LAW.I know that it may be difficult, but any abused person should have full confidence in the LAW, to start with. If there is no confidence, or indeed proper protection, then there is something corrupt with the LAW, or the the system that operates it.I cannot,nor will I criticise your system, as I am obviously very remote from it!!Your country is renowned for it's stance on Freedom, but, if it in fact leads to abuse of individuals (women) then it strikes me that something is sadly lacking in this sphere!!
thesometimesaint Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 Bertram:Rest asurred women can and do testify against their husbands all the time.In the law. Spouses of either sex can NOT be FORCED to testify against each other.
Bertram Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 thesometimesaint,Thank you for your clarification!I would have been very surprised if it was otherwise!
Orange Zodiac Posted June 11, 2005 Posted June 11, 2005 If you are saying that a women, who is abused by her husband, and calls the Police, cannot testify against him, then I am utterly aghast, if that is "privilege"under your law! Betram stop putting words in my mouth and just read what I said. This is not about what someone can or cannot do according to the law. My posts have been to point out that there are other reasons why a woman in that day and age may be loath to testify against her husband. These forces are still around today. Have you not heard of women trying to put a restraining order on their abusive husbands who then ignore the restraining order, break into their homes and kill them. How much easier would this have been back then when there were even fewer methods for determining who was guilty of committing a murder? The husband could always blame it on some indian or some itinerant miner. What protection could the courts have really offered a woman who wanted to testify against her husband? Would such an act garnered public support in UT or public outrage and shunning? It is hard enough to get people upset about polygamy today, let alone back then when it was practiced by 30% of the population especially among the rich and powerful of the region. Do you really think these women wanted BY upset at them? Please explain to me what the upside would be for these women if they spoke out against the practice? I will concede that it is possible that they could have been completely happy with their marital arrangement. But I think even you can concede that their silence in the matter does not indicate support for the practice. In fact if they were completely thrilled with the arrangement why didn't they speak out in favor of it? Why didn't they testify about what loving and caring husbands they have who provided for their every need? Why not testify about how they love their sister wives and how they know that it is a divinely instituted practice?
Bertram Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 lds8n't,I am sure that you know by now that I try very very hard not to respond to suppositions!Give me NAMES, DATES, ACTUAL cases of women who were in fear and who were afraid to speak out!" Way back yonder in New Orleans" type of references only waste everybody's time because of their utter vagueness.Sorry to be abrupt but I prefer facts to supposition...I know you will come back to me with clarity!
Orange Zodiac Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Give me NAMES, DATES, ACTUAL cases of women who were in fear and who were afraid to speak out! Look at the women who are involved in polygamy today. They have said that they did not speak out because of fear. Why should we assume it was different back in the pioneer days? If you are unwilling to accept the womens silence as being motivated by fear because of lack of documented statements by them that they kept silence out of fear then you should similarly question the thesis that they kept quite because they loved their polygamist lifestyle. Can you provide me with evidence that the women in question said they loved being a polygamist wife? My point is simply to point out that silence in court does not automatically mean support for the doctrine.
Bertram Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 lds8n't,You just cannot put forward suppositions as fact!If you are telling me that polygamous women have told you that they kept quiet through fear then that is a fact known only to you....unless you have their permission to reveal it to others then it only remains as hearsay, sadly!It only becomes fact to all whenever THEY reveal it to the world where it can be assessed and tested!I, as a human being, am sure that they could have been men and women who might have had doubts and misaprehensions after becoming engaged in polygamy.....that is a distinct possibility!Equally so to-day there are men and women in monogamous relationships who probably realise that marriage was a mistake for them as well!I know of one lady personally who will never leave her husband or even contemplate Divorce because to do so would be in defiance of her church's teachings.....so she soldiers on in a loveless and cruel sham marriage!Would you also condemn her and/or her church for that situation?If people WILLINGLY enter into a relationship, of whatever description, and wish to "suffer in silence", then unfortunately, that is their decision!Personally I believe that NO ONE should have to endure that and they should part from that relationship, if it is irreconcilable! In the meantime you have not quoted anyone who has been FORCED into polygamy in the TRUE CHURCH, so unless you do, then you are treading unwaringly in the land of supposition!
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 lds8n't:The divorce decrees of the time indiction that all the women involved were not happy with polygamy. But that is a long jump of assumption to they were "fearful'.OTOH. We have womens diaries and journals that sing its praises.
Rollo Tomasi Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Scott:Actually, your post enhances what I've said about the Church downplaying polygamy. You didn't post the entire part of Lesson #31, did you? Actually, the small part you quote is not even part of the lesson to be given in class -- rather, it is #6 (and last) in the "Additional Help" section. And it says the teacher should only give that part if asked about it first. So that the readers here have full disclosure of what you are talking about, here is the entire section from which you quoted just a snippet:*************************6. Plural MarriageThe following information is provided to help you if class members have questions about the practice of plural marriage. It should not be the focus of the lesson.The Lord's purpose for commanding His people to practice plural marriageIn the Book of Mormon, the prophet Jacob taught:
Orange Zodiac Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 You just cannot put forward suppositions as fact!If you are telling me that polygamous women have told you that they kept quiet through fear then that is a fact known only to you....unless you have their permission to reveal it to others then it only remains as hearsay, sadly!It only becomes fact to all whenever THEY reveal it to the world where it can be assessed and tested!When did I ever say it was a fact?? Again my point has been from the begining that it cannot be assumed that the two women who kept silent in the court room were in favor of polygamy. I agree that it doesn't prove they were against it. I only offered this as an alternative to the original poster who tried to use their example as proof that these women were thrilled with their marital arrangement.Mormons like to point out how hard is was for women to survive back then without a husband. So why are you all freaked out by my OPINION that there is a chance that these women kept silent because they didn't want to loose what little support they did receive from their husbands or endure potential ridicule or retribution from those who believed in the practice who at the time were the leaders in the community? Do you accept the womens silence as an endorsement of polygamy? On what basis?
Orange Zodiac Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 lds8n't:The divorce decrees of the time indiction that all the women involved were not happy with polygamy. But that is a long jump of assumption to they were "fearful'.OTOH. We have womens diaries and journals that sing its praises. Thankyou for making my point that not all women were thrilled with the polygamist arrangement. Thus the fact that two women remained silent in court doesn't not automatically equate to their being totally thrilled with the practice. Unless we can look at their journals we will not know for sure. However, even the contents of their journals may be suspect on this issue since it is unlikely that these women could be 100% assured that their secret words would not be read by their husbands. But I am willing to accept that these women may have been happy with polygamy if everyone else can accept that this may not have been the case. Silence proves nothing.
Bertram Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 lds8n't,You are a little like my old "crystal" radio set!You are constantly fading in and out!If some unnamed women sitting silently in some unnamed place and are saying NOTHING: am I supposed to be a mind-reader?My answer to your mysterious train of thought is obviously that I do not know if their thoughts prove if they like something or that they do not like something!!!! Please do not ask me to hypothesise on positive or negative thinking!I am not Solomon but I will do my best to imitate him if you would only give me an inkling of a fact!I would have thought my earlier posts had covered your Freudian path but if not come back...but with clarity...otherwise I am totally confused!
gonzoman Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 It shouldn't be surprising that the Church doesn't delve into polygamy in lesson manuals about our current doctrines and policies, when the OD 1 did away with polygamy in the Church. Are you sure about that? There were plural marriages after the Official Manifesto, which is why another declaration had to be issued in 1904.
Pace Nielsen Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Sorry. I guess I should have qualified my statement for those who want exactitude. I meant that polygamy has been done away in the Church, and most members know this due to OD 1. So there isn't a need to delve into the topic nowadays in a Sunday School class.
gonzoman Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Sorry. I guess I should have qualified my statement for those who want exactitude. I meant that polygamy has been done away in the Church, and most members know this due to OD 1. So there isn't a need to delve into the topic nowadays in a Sunday School class. OD1 didn't do away with polygamy in the Church, in fact all members of the First Presidency approved post-Manifesto plural marriages and several prominent Church leaders married plural wives after the Manifesto. Your bigger point is true, the practice has been discontinued.
Pace Nielsen Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 OD1 didn't do away with polygamy in the ChurchWhich is why I said my first statement was inexact. Thank you for realizing my bigger point was true. in fact all members of the First Presidency approved post-Manifesto plural marriages and several prominent Church leaders married plural wives after the Manifesto.As I understand it, Lorenzo Snow never did (while a counselor to Wilford Woodruff, nor while the President of the Church). But I may be wrong about that.
maxrep12 Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Scott:Actually, your post enhances what I've said about the Church downplaying polygamy. You didn't post the entire part of Lesson #31, did you? Actually, the small part you quote is not even part of the lesson to be given in class -- rather, it is #6 (and last) in the "Additional Help" section. And it says the teacher should only give that part if asked about it first. So that the readers here have full disclosure of what you are talking about, here is the entire section from which you quoted just a snippet: Rollo,thanks for pointing out a reply that is less than forthcoming.
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2005 Posted June 12, 2005 Pace Nielson:That's my understanding to. I thiks it's POSSIBLE, but HIGHLY IMPROBABLE that some lone sealer in some Temple, without authorization, could have performed a polygamous ceremony.
Pace Nielsen Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 thesometimesaint,Unfortunately, as I understand it, some of Lorenzo Snow's counsellors went behind his back and authorized polygamous unions (in Mexico). I guess they thought they had the authority to authorize such unions. I'm pretty sure Joseph F. Smith authorized them (while a counsellor, and while the president before the 2nd manifesto).At any rate, these problems were eventually worked out. We don't expect our leaders to be perfect, only to be penitent.Best,Pace
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Pace Nielson:Sorry, I should have limited my comments to inside the U.S.I'd like to see where they were authorized for inside the U.S.I do know that there was some question as to whether the Saints should extend obeying U.S. law to foreign contries. Good question even today(not including polygamy).I'm not familiar enough with Mexican law to say whether polygamy was legal or illegal at the time.
Pace Nielsen Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Oh! Thanks for the qualifier. (P.S. My name has an "en" at the end. But you got close enough. )
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 Pace Nielsen:One of these days I MUST learn how to type.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 On my mission there were no "abbreviated" baptismal commitments. In fact, some of the people I taught had been investigating the Church for years. SLloyd: Ever hear of "Baseball Baptisms"? there was a thread here abt them... Yes. They were long in the past by the time I served my mission 30 years ago.As a district leader empowered to conduct pre-baptism interviews, I would not have signed off on any candidate whom I suspected was rushed through the conversion process.
ave maria Posted June 13, 2005 Posted June 13, 2005 On my mission there were no "abbreviated" baptismal commitments. In fact, some of the people I taught had been investigating the Church for years. SLloyd: Ever hear of "Baseball Baptisms"? there was a thread here abt them... Yes. They were long in the past by the time I served my mission 30 years ago.As a district leader empowered to conduct pre-baptism interviews, I would not have signed off on any candidate whom I suspected was rushed through the conversion process. Well, and in fairness, Latter-day Saints might baptize sooner than some denominations, but they do require a one-year waiting period following baptism before going through any temple initiation/endowment/sealing process.So in that sense, the "waiting period" is somewhat similar. Newly baptized might go through "temple prep" classes, while catechumens and candidates in the Catholic Church might be going through RCIA.Not exactly the same thing, but the prescribed waiting period, and the intent, is somewhat similar.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.