Coming from Utah and being raised in a very big, very Mormon family, I put up with a lot of crazy questions and arguments about the validity of my family's religious beliefs. I'm at a point in my life and in my relationship where marriage is becoming a big deal. All the friends I grew up with are engaged or married and starting families of their own, but all the friends I have made here on the east coast think I should have another 5-1o years to wait before even considering such a big step.
One person in particular is adamantly opposed to the idea of James and I starting a life so soon. She like to tell me how brainwashed I've been by the evil Mormons, and states the same facts of "such-and-and such a factor makes you more likely to get a divorce." My offending factors; wanting to marry young, wanting to have children within 5 years of marrying, knowing my future spouse for less than 5 years, among others. I take what she says with a grain of salt because of some of her offending factors; living with a man before marriage, wanting a childless marriage, she doesn't smile for photographs, among other factors.
Our discussions of religion and/or marriage always come back to the early Mormon practice of polygamy. I read a blog post from a crazy woman condemning the polygamists of the Eldorado, Texas compound when Child Protection took more than 400 children out of their homes back in 2008. What she failed to acknowledge was the fact that every single child taken from the compound was returned to his or her parents because there wasn't anything illegal about the compound. The children were well fed, educated within U.S. laws, given adequate space to live and grow, and by all accounts were just as happy and healthy as any other middle class family in America.
This is less of a legal issue and more of a social or moral issue. The United States Government does not legally recognize the second or third marriage of a polygamist, only the first marriage. It isn't legal for a man to keep multiple families in a dwelling, so long as there aren't any cases of neglect or abuse stemming from inadequate space and/or resources. But here's where the moral issue come in. So many people are willing to berate a man who wants to care for and love multiple families while bearing the title of husband to both/all at the same time. However, those people can condone a man who leaves his first wife, with whom he took vows to honor and love for the rest of his life, to marry another woman, with whom he will share those same vows. The only difference is whether or not he chooses to uphold the original contract, and the winner is the man who defaults on his commitment.
It's unacceptable for a man to have 12 children by two wives, but perfectly fine if he wants nearly 20 children with one wife. But then again, it is okay for a man to have 12 children by two women so long as they aren't both his wife at the same time. And who decided that it is wrong for a man to take responsibility for multiple women he loves, but that he is justifies if he abandons one family in lieu of another?
Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be a part of a polygamist marriage myself. Living with other women is awful, let alone having to share with them. James would not be well suited to multiple wives, either. He has enough trouble keeping me, alone, happy most of the time.
But I suppose with the Eldorado, Texas compound, the issue lies in allegations of forced marriage and marriage to children. I know a girl who could shout and wave a banner for days protesting the marriage of a 16-year-old, but she will sit down and watch a two day marathon of the MTV series 16 And Pregnant without batting an eyelash. In her world, is it amoral to allow a 16 year old to reproduce within the confines of a marital union, but tolerable for that same 16 year old to bear an illegitimate child?
I just finished reading The Man Who Had Been King, a history of Napoleon Bonaparte's oldest brother, Joseph, throughout the imperial rule and his exile in America. Napoleon disagreed with the marriage of his youngest brother, Lucien, to a woman with absolutely no noble blood and attempted to have the marriage annulled by decree of the Pope. Lucien fled to Rome with his wife to protect his marriage, saying that is was ordained of God and could not be broken. Lucien stayed faithful to his wife for his entire life, but was disowned by his family for his choice in marriage. However, Joseph married a noble woman of Napoleon's choosing and had two children with her. He also had at least 6 other children by 4 other women, including an American 2 years younger than his oldest daughter. The family still loved and accepted Joseph.
If I keep going, I will end up with a book ranting about the discrepancies between legal, moral, and everlasting marriages. I'm starting a new blog which I will dedicate solely to my quest to find a happy marriage that will last long after I am dead. http://www.marriagequest1397.blogspot.com
I'd like to invite everyone to share ideas for posts. I have a lot, and I'm sure I can get a lot more as I go, but I've not experienced a loving marriage as of yet and will need help from those who have/are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Here's a great quote from M. Russel Ballard in last month's Ensign:
"Our Church members have often allowed others to set the conversational agenda. An example is plural marriage. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2010. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it was once a practice but not now and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church."
Also, time is irrelevant. If you're really shooting for eternal (ie temple) marriage, what difference does 5 years make? It's a drop in the bucket. If you love someone and you want to be with them, why torture yourself by putting it off to appease someone else's timeline? That's why we "brainwashed" Mormons can tend to get married quickly. We don't have a worldly perspective. Travel, education, money - these are concerns of the world that we know we can work through with a spouse. Why put off eternal happiness for things that can easily be had while you're together?
Also, can we stop using pictures where I'm enormously pregnant?
Also, there were no laws against polygamy in this country until the Mormons started practicing it. But that, too, is the past. Let's all move on, shall we?
Natalie, you have enlightened my mind. I like your logic. And I am going to go read that other bloggy blog. I do hope you include something about same-sex marriage (if you haven't already), as prop 8 was overturned in CA yesterday.
There has never been a society that didn't fail shortly after acknowleging same sex relations. Same sex marriage came after prosperity, which brought lots of perfume which is a harmone that messes up the sensor in a males nose. That sensor attracts him to a womans ferramones. It doesn't help either that the counties are spraying pyrethines, sythetic estrogen for mosquito spray, turning boys into girls.
Post a Comment