Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can PM for my address so you know where to send my Arab and magic carpet
Damn you! I'll send you a rug, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for magic. (in fairness, me and Chow have established that there will always be rare exceptions to rules)
Damn you! I'll send you a rug, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for magic. (in fairness, me and Chow have established that there will always be rare exceptions to rules)
Lol. Honestly the exception to the rule in polygamist arrangements are FLDS, the majority claim Christianity or non Christian beliefs. A minority of polygamists claim FLDS, and no mainstream member of the LDS church is permitted more than one spouse.
Lol. Honestly the exception to the rule in polygamist arrangements are FLDS, the majority claim Christianity or non Christian beliefs. A minority of polygamists claim FLDS, and no mainstream member of the LDS church is permitted more than one spouse.
Well... Find me a polygamist family who aren't Mormon fundamentalists, and I'll find you an Arab riding on a magical carpet.
When you use the word "Mormon," people automatically think of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since polygamy is an excommunicable offense in this church, it's kind of misleading to use the word "Mormon fundamentalists." "Members of the FLDS Church" would be a more accurate and less offensive way of putting it.
When you use the word "Mormon," people automatically think of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Since polygamy is an excommunicable offense in this church, it's kind of misleading to use the word "Mormon fundamentalists." "Members of the FLDS Church" would be a more accurate and less offensive way of putting it.
Thanks for the info. I'm really concerned about offending people. I feel enlightened, and more tolerant, now.
There is an entire UNIVERSE out there that doesn't even know what polygamy or fundamental Christianity IS.
Let alone Mormonism.
So no, the world view is not shifting. It may seem like it is from Middle USA, but from the outside looking in >>>>nope.
But most of the members who post here are not on the outside looking in. The original question was not about the world view so much as American culture. I think we are changing, and it's relevant to discuss because it matters to the 310+ million who live here, even if we're a small percent of the world's population.
But most of the members who post here are not on the outside looking in. The original question was not about the world view so much as American culture. I think we are changing, and it's relevant to discuss because it matters to the 310+ million who live here, even if we're a small percent of the world's population.
What's not in the least changing is the individualism that permeates American culture. Polygamy is only possible in collectivist cultures, where people gravitate towards concentrations of power and relax their individual primacy in favor of belonging to the tribe, the band, the collective. The American mainstream would never countenance, let alone endorse, a village-mentality, where all property is held in common, where wives (or husbands) are held in common; or where a few "big men" or chiefs monopolize the women. How many modern Americans would voluntarily say, "My life is shiftless and aimless. I will instead go become a servant at a great estate, spending the entirety of my life tending to the stables or the grounds, without possibility of marrying. In exchange, my lord will take care of my keep, and I'll have a home in my old age".
What's not in the least changing is the individualism that permeates American culture. Polygamy is only possible in collectivist cultures, where people gravitate towards concentrations of power and relax their individual primacy in favor of belonging to the tribe, the band, the collective.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Individualism and polygamy are not necessarily mutually exclusive on a cultural level. To a small degree they may be on an individual level (two women agree to share a husband for example) but I think it's quite a jump to say it is only possible on a cultural level in a collectivist minded culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
The American mainstream would never countenance, let alone endorse, a village-mentality, where all property is held in common, where wives (or husbands) are held in common; or where a few "big men" or chiefs monopolize the women. How many modern Americans would voluntarily say, "My life is shiftless and aimless. I will instead go become a servant at a great estate, spending the entirety of my life tending to the stables or the grounds, without possibility of marrying. In exchange, my lord will take care of my keep, and I'll have a home in my old age".
I would hope not, but a big part of the American electorate seems to endorse this. Otherwise today's democrat party (and elements of the republican party as well) would not look anything like what we see today. But I'm going to stop there because I find politics too distasteful to discuss at large. Plus this is relationships and anyone who has the stomach for political "conversation" can go over to the P&OC forum. I've long ago stopped tormenting myself with that din.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
