Alternative Spirituality

» Jolinda - Religious freedom or human rights abuses?

In response to Religious freedom or human rights abuses? posted by jcredmond:

Thanks for your feedback.

What you describe is termed "polyandry" by anthropologists. This would really not be in keeping with the percieved emic intent of polygamy, that is, modelling after the Old Testament patriarchs (and the teachings of Joseph Smith), the emphasis on procreation, etc. Really, the reason why it hasn't developed likely has to due with an imbalance of power between the genders.

Women are not seen as spiritual leaders in the FLDS church, and would be unlikely to have any influence on church policy.

I'm sure many women trapped in polygamous families could offer some insight and likely have had the thought at least, numerous times!

-- posted by Jolinda

» Brian Tubbs - Arminius

In response to Question for Jolinda posted by Jolinda:

I disagree that love is a post-Arminius development. Jesus is the one that said "For God so loved the world" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." And that was long before Arminius. The Apostle Paul wrote the famous "love chapter" of I Corinthians 13 long before Arminius. Just two examples, and there are many, many others.

» Jolinda - Arminius

In response to Arminius posted by BrianTubbs:
Of course. But religious historians believe that it wasn't the fundamental tenet of Christianity the way it is today until the decline of Calvinism, election, etc.

God was definitely angry before "he" was loving.

-- posted by Jolinda

» Brian Tubbs - I disagree

In response to Arminius posted by Jolinda:

The first real allusions to election come from Augustine and are later refined by Luther and Calvin during the Reformation period. The five-point system actually comes after Calvin. If you go back to the first century, though (the time of the founding of the Christian church), I don't think you'll find the theology of election or predestination - not in an individual, arbitrary sense anyway.

As to God being "angry," well that anger is always in RESPONSE to human sin and rebellion. God doesn't simply have some kind of mood management problem. :-)

» spiritalk - Question for Jolinda

In response to Question for Jolinda posted by BrianTubbs:
If Jesus' message wasn't enough, I think the bible has indications. Why not practice and see it fulfil the natural law in a more service oriented manner.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» spiritalk - Women w/ multiple husbands

In response to Women w/ multiple husbands posted by BrianTubbs:
It was done in the movies...Paint Your Wagon...as a direct posting of just this topic. What is good for the goose has never been good for the gander.

Why the restriction? might be the better question. If the underlying religious theory is correct, it would not be gender biased...God isn't.

God bless, J

-- posted by spiritalk

» Brian Tubbs - Obviously, Spiritalk....

In response to Question for Jolinda posted by spiritalk:

I do believe in God's love. I was asking the question to see what Jolinda based her understanding of God's love on. Okay?

» Brian Tubbs - Polygamy

In response to Women w/ multiple husbands posted by spiritalk:

For the record...I don't support polygamy at all (for men or women). However, if you are going to open the door to polygamy, I think you should open it to both genders. It makes no sense to do otherwise. But, again, I don't believe in opening the door to polygamy. It would completely shatter the whole concept of marriage and the family.

» Jolinda - Obviously, Spiritalk....

In response to Obviously, Spiritalk.... posted by BrianTubbs:

I'll just have to point out that we are talking about three different concepts of "god" and, in this forum, none of us have a monopoly on that concept.

The God of the FLDS church is very different than the more mainline protestant God that I'm assuming Brian is talking about. Spiritalk, I don't know what your concept of God is, but I'm surmising it may be different.

And me? I'm just here to facilitate.

-- posted by Jolinda

» jcredmond - Polygamy

In response to Polygamy posted by BrianTubbs:
My theory about the reason why multiple husbands is never thought of as a good thing (other than the fact that I think women are challenged enough when they have one, much less multiple men in their lives) goes something like this:

It all comes down to males wanting to see their bloodline continue. When a woman is pregnant and gives birth, she *knows* that baby is hers. Men have to trust us when we tell them that they are the father (at least in the days before DNA testing). Why should a man expend his energy and (back in the days when we were living in caves) perhaps give up his life to protect offspring that are not his?

So if a woman has more than one spouse, how does anyone know who fathered the children? Also, in keeping with wanting to keep the gene pool strong, a woman can only be impregnated by one man at a time, while a man can potentially impregnate several women in that same timeframe, thus keeping his gene pool strong with many children.

Not that I'm saying that polygamy is a good idea, mind...I think marriage should be between two people.

-- posted by jcredmond