#and also cultures where polygamy is allowed but only one man to many wives where the wives are more a symbol of wealth

[midnight-mod]

Anyway if you can’t tell I’m having Poly Feels this Thursday.

[vorsakhal]

                            ♞ | Headcanon | The Dothraki

Important Note: This Headcanon will be delving into my portrayal and ideas on the Dothraki as a culture, including inner workings, ideals and beliefs. It will include and build on what is known in canon as well as what I think would work alongside it. 

However please be aware the Dothraki do not have a modernist ideal on humanity. They have a lot of beliefs and habits that will upset some people, writing this out and including it is not me agreeing with it it’s just how they are. Ignoring a problem doesn’t make it better. So a coverall TW for de-humanisation, slavery, rape mentions, exclusionists, war, violence ect ect ect

So as mentioned this is a long ass HC giving my ideals and how I will handle the Dothraki whilst writing Drogo. This post will be a link back for anyone curious as to his views or the views of his people. 

Firstly: Social standings and positions within the Dothraki. 

To clear something up, a lot of canon states the Dothraki see women as lesser but it’s a lot more complicated than that. Women who are not of their Khalasar or are not Dothraki at all - they are lesser, but so are their men. It is a matter of us vs them, gender isn’t as simple. 

The Dothraki do not think women can lead individual Khalasars because they believe a woman who has personal agenda is a woman who will betray their people to protect what she loves first. A mothers instinct above all, but a mothers love is the strongest thing and so without a khalsar she is more capable leading which leads to the Dosh Khaleen, ex-wives of Khal’s who have died who now watch over all of the Dothraki from Vaes Dothrak. All of the Khalsar are their children and the mother mountain protects them, they will always do best for their people. Their word sits above everything, so the strongest men bow to them. 

It’s this reason women cannot enter the mother mountain, they are already gifted by her, able to give as she did. Men will ascend it to seek her blessing and newly risen Khal’s will bath in the womb of the world lake to be granted her protection.

It is not that women are lesser so much as they are considered blinded by a bond beyond what men can have. They can become warriors, they can become Khaleesi, reminded of their loyalty by their Khal but they cannot become Khal. A woman who cannot become a mother is not blinded and so can become a healer, a confidant or advisor. 

Women who can not fight or ride are considered useless, just as a man would be if he could not do the same.

Now that that’s cleared up, in order top to bottom is the Dothraki social standing. 

Dosh Kahleen

Khal Khalakka

Khaleesi

Bloodriders

Jaqqa Rhan

Healers - Barren born first then the Eunich Healers

Hunters and Cooks

Seamstresses and Smiths

Scouts 

General Warriors

Slaves

Outsiders

It’s common enough knowledge they also worship the Stallion, their God who will allow them passage to ride in the night lands but they also believe in the Gods of the sun and moon who guide them in the Stallions name. They have their own idea of Hell, reserved for the men who died inhonorable deaths or betrayed their Khalasar. Women will only find their way to hell if they murder their Khalakka or betray their Khal. 

It should be noted that what the show does a SHIT JOB of showing is that the Dothraki are a roaming farming culture. They have their sacred lands and fields, moving between each of them, taking and cultivating as they go. They will “gift” (their idea of trading) horses in return for gifts of what they need, alongside weapons, slaves and food. They are adept with herbs, berries and poisons - they kind of have to know what’s safe for them and their horses for gods sake. 

As a warrior culture they’re capable healers in their own right. Barren women are taught herbs, polstices, bandaging and protection. Eunich men know how to use fire and needles to burn away problems. 

( Yes this is canon, yes I stand by the fact that if Dany had allowed the Dothraki to work instead of the witch he’d have lived (that parts actually shaded about IN canon). Yes I will hand fight GRR over it anyday )

The Dothraki view on outsiders comes with a tainted history that dates back to the wars for the seven kingdoms. Many Dothraki have not forgotten the stories of slaughter and pillaging and rape, they give it back tenfold in the name of it. Vaes Dothrak remains the only place willing to trade with outsiders due to the fact it was never breached when the ships first crossed. Cities learnt not to try again. 

Because of this however they see anyone they consider not Dothraki to be less than animals. They are nothing but a gift from the Gods to use as a tool of their fitting be it to fuck, eat, kill or trade. They have no sympathy or empathy over it because they do not see them as people to begin with, however, some outsiders will be granted a pardon. If taken in by a Khalasar the way Mormont and Dany were they are typically given clothing and markings to wear that will tell people they are one of them.

If they do not wear the clothing or markings it is a dismissal of that Gift, other Khal’s and Khalasar have every right to deny them as an outsider once more.

When it comes to sexuality the Dothraki have a view that they don’t really care. As long as a Khal sires an heir everyone else is pretty much free to do whatever they want as their heirs will matter little and their bloodline adds only to the Khal’s power. Yes this means wlw and mlm relationships are common, enough that they even speak openly about it. It also means that the women are not the only one raped and taken, despite what outsiders might think.

Because of this Marriage is held as more sacred than other parts of Westeros. It is not a bid for power but done because they wish too, after all a Khal is only interested in strong women and you can only climb the ladder with your strength. It makes Drogo’s marriage to Dany all the more strange and it’s why some of them reject it as violently as they did. To them he brought her, he didn’t love her when he married. He swore off women of their own kind for Dany and it was essentially a sell out of what could be a stronger union. 

It’s also why Dany’s demand that any women raped be married is taken so seriously. To them it would mean buying a wife, a sign of weakness again. 

Polygamy is also common, on both sides. Women can take multiple men and if they disagree they can fight to the death for her. A man can take multiple women, the same option is offered.

Sexuality and Sex is not considered shameful. It’s strange to cover yourself or your desires among the Dothraki as they consider it hiding your truth from the Gods. Women are not shamed for taking many men, infact a women who can take more men is considered stronger and more capable.

The Jaqqa Rhan are the mercy men. A group of warriors who sweep battlefields after the battle and behead and burn bodies of the dying or injured who have not yet died. This is given only in battles where the enemy has earned a Khal’s respect. If the Khal deems the fight too easy or the enemy too weak they will leave the soldiers to die in the fields.

In terms of the Khalasar as a whole they move as a herd. Each warrior and soldier has a part to play to the betterment of their people and group. Scouts, Cooks, Healers, Seamstresses and even the slaves are all considered vital and important in the unified strength of a band. Because of such each member takes their part seriously, to the point of being willing to kill if someone attempts to replace them. 

Outsiders, slaves and other Khalasar members are able to become a member of a Khalasar by proving themselves to the Khal. To become one of them and be considered Dothraki is to be safe, to have strength and protection and food and clothing. 

Typically this is done in a great act, by proving yourself in battle of the Khal’s behalf OR bringing them a gift of great value. Personally delivering something to impress a Khal and pledge your loyalty will likely grant you favour faster than being noticed in battle but it is harder to do if you do not know the Khal’s preferences. 

The Khal is unlikely entertain an outsider who does not prove themselves with offerings or blood first, to come with nothing and no show is an insult and demand.

Politics is an odd affair. To the Dothraki what betters the Dothraki is more important than their own wants. In that, they’re oddly diplomatic. The Khal and Dosh Khaleen will meet and decide in the event of war, famine or crime. Anything that does not effect the larger group is dealt with privately, most Khal will have an advisor with a silver tongue to deal with wanting outsiders. 

They do not write or agree to written contracts however, to deal with the Dothraki is a matter of keeping your word. If a mans promise is broken his arm will be as well. If it becomes known among the Dothraki you are dishonourable and prone to manipulation and you piss off enough of the Khals, the Dosh Khaleen will place an open invitation and a gift for whoever first brings them your head.

Each Khalasar has it’s own unique markings, paints and colourings. Drogo’s Khalasar have paints of blue that drag like claw marks along skin. Others use yellows and whites in intricate swirls and loops. These markings are identifiers, helpful when crossing wide expanses of open country and more so finding your kin in Vaes Dothrak through the crowd.

Each Khalasar is expected to return to Vaes Dothrak once a year to receive the Dosh Khaleen’s blessing. There they will trade whatever they have found, collected or harvested in their journeys and there is where outsiders are safer to approach and impress if they wish to join or bargain. Within the walls of Vaes Dothrak everyone is considered equal bar the Kahl’s, Khaleesi and Dosh Khaleen. Warriors and Healers intermingle and even slaves are allowed small comforts under watchful eyes. 

Just as most do the Dothraki also have their own festivals, note worthy dates and celebrations. 

They celebrate a fall harvest with a great party beneath the harvest moon, they will sing, chant and give offerings to the sun and moon there in hopes of safe travels. 

They celebrate the spring, a time in which mares breed and new Stallions find strength though it’s typically used as an excuse to fuck and drink for a few nights it is also the time in which they will parade horses through Vaes dothrak and most offerings of marriage are done then. 

They also have the cold silence. A night spent with no sound in which they are given strength for their travels by khals past. To make a sound on this night is to offend the spirits and spook their stallions, you will be killed. 

ANYWAY that rounds that up for now! Thank you for reading :D

[truthaboutislam-blog1]

Islam and polygamy -I

Polygamy In Islam is defined in many dictionaries as: “Any person (male or female) may unconditionally marry unlimited number spouses at the same time."

This means that a male or female may marry an unlimited number of spouses at the same time. In other cultures and faiths, a male may marry an unlimited number of wives at the same time, for any reason, unrestricted by any conditions. Such practices are totally prohibited in Islam.

In Islam, a Muslim man is granted the right to marry more than one wife, accompanied by several clear conditions. These conditions are: financial, physical and emotional ability, equal treatment of the wives, that the women are not among those who are prohibited for him to marry permanently (such as aunts, foster daughters and others specified in the Quran) or temporarily (such as marrying two sisters at the same time); and that the number of wives is limited to four.

Hence, this is a legal provision that can be properly understood in the context of Islam's position on these issues:

First, in Islam, the family is considered the cornerstone of society; any extra-marital relationship is devastating and damaging to the family and hence it is strictly prohibited. Married life is most desirable in Islam, Islam envisions the role of a woman as a respected, honorable wife, not a secret mistress; while allocating to men the role  of respected, responsible husbands, never indulging in secret affairs..

Second, Islam and Islamic laws are for all times and for all circumstances and situations, therefore, they must accommodate all possible social and individual situations.

Third, in Islam, every Muslim man should have a wife and every Muslim woman should have a husband.

Although it may have been abused in certain times and places, polygamy can have a valuable function in certain circumstances; in some situations it may be considered as the lesser of two difficult situations, and in others it may be even a beneficial arrangement.

The obvious example of this occurs in times of war, when there are inevitably large numbers of widows and orphans left without companionship, love, income, care or protection.

If it is still maintained under these circumstances that a man may marry only one wife, other women will be deprived of having a family that includes a loving husband, a companion for life, children and a father for the children. What option is left for those women who have no chance to get married ? They could either stay alone or enter into an illicit relationship.

Most women would not welcome either of those two options. A mistress is just an unofficial second wife who has no legal rights or security for herself or her children. The fact is that women under these circumstances may prefer to share a husband than have none at all; there is no doubt that it is easier to share a husband when it is an established and legal practice, than when it is carried on secretly with attempts to deceive the first wife.

There are other situations where this kind of practice may be preferable for all parties, such as if the first wife is chronically ill, if she cannot have children, if a woman cannot earn a living and needs emotional and financial support.

These examples are mentioned here because people assume that polygamy in Islam is a means to cater to the whims of the Muslim man, not as a real solution to some difficult social problems.

The first verse in the Quran that allows this practice was revealed following the battle of Uhud, in which hundreds of Muslim men were killed, leaving widows and orphans whose care was the responsibility of the Muslim male survivors.

Allah Almighty Says in the Quran (what means): {To orphans restore their property when they reach their age, and do not substitute your worthless things for their good ones, and devour not their substance by mixing it up with your own. For this is indeed a great sin. If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four ; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with them, then marry only one.}[Quran 4:2-3]

From these verses, a number of facts are evident:

1.       This permission is not only associated with mere satisfaction of passion; rather it is associated with compassion toward widows and orphans -- a matter that is confirmed by the conditions in which these verses were revealed.

2.       Dealing justly with one's wives is an obligation in Islam. This applies to housing, food, kind treatment, etc.; that is to say that the husband has complete obligation towards all of his wives and their children without any discrimination.

3.       If one is not sure of being able to deal justly with them, the Muslim man is advised to marry only one wife.

Polygamy is far better and more honorable than the case where a man is secretly having mistresses or involved with prostitutes (adultery). This practice is also better than the case where the husband divorces his wife if she falls ill and marries another one.

The requirement of justice between wives rules out the fantasy that a man can have as many wives as he pleases; it also rules out the concept of a "secondary" wife, for all wives have exactly the same status and are entitled to identical rights and claims over their husband.

The verses say "marry" -- not buy, seduce or select -- since in Islam, marriage is a civil contract, which is valid only when both parties consent to it. Thus no woman can be married forcibly or given to a man who is already married, except if she and her family agree, since there is no secret marriage in Islam polygamy is practiced as a free choice of both parties.

It is evident that the permission for

Polygamy In Islam is consistent with the realistic Islamic worldview, that remains applicable through varying social needs, problems and cultural variations for all time and in all places.

[yamsfreckles-archive]

Omg I hope it’s not too personal to ask about ur experience leaving the Mormon church; I was going to an lds church for a hot second and just oh god no

Thank you so much for your patience with me taking so long to answer this! Moving is stressful af (Also I hope you don’t mind that I’m answering this publicly. I rarely talk about this huge part of my life, but I feel it’s important for others to know before making a decision on joining a religion)

I grew up in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Usually called the LDS Church, or often just the “Mormon Church”). I was “born in the Covenant”, which is just a fancy way of saying my family was already members of the church when I was born. So basically, the mormon church and culture framed my Entire Life from the moment I was born until I officially resigned from the religion a year and a half ago. 

The core principal of mormanism is The Plan of Salvation - basically the idea that we were predestined in our pre-mortal lives to come to Earth and be tested, and if we remain faithful for our whole lives, when we die we will be exalted to the highest degree and have our family with us for all eternity. (Also there are three kingdoms of exaltation, and the highest one has three layers to it, and if you are in the highest layer of the highest kingdom then you actually get to create your own universe [if you’re a man] and become the God of that universe. If you’re a woman then your eternal duty is to bare children for your God-husband and populate that universe and never really be acknowledged lmao). Although that last fact isn’t super well known in the church doctrine. 

The mormon church follows the Bible like most Christian religions, but they also follow a separate book called “The Book of Mormon”, which the church authorities refer to as “the most correct of any book on Earth”. The Book of Mormon is all about how a righteous family left Jerusalem before it was destroyed and built a boat and sailed to the Americas where there was a war and half of the family descendants - the Lamanites - were evil and sought to bring down the kingdom of God, while the other half - the Nephites - were righteous to a fault. The Lamanites ended up getting struck with “blackness” for their sins so that they could be told apart from the white, and therefore good, Nephites. Church authorities in the past have claimed that the Lamanites were the direct ancestors of the Native Americans. Which is hugely racist and disgusting to say, because the book literally said that black skin would show “their abominations”. (But hey this church has been openly racist, sexist, and homophobic since its conception so big surprise there)

Anyway, there is a lot more doctrine and I could spend an eternity writing about it because it gets me so angry, but I feel this answer is already going to be fucking long enough so I’ll just leave those two points. Though if you want to know more about the church’s history with racism or sexism, let me know!

So like I said, I was born into this church and I was baptised at eight years old (the age of accountability) to become an official member of the church. I was completely in love with the church. It gave me purpose and friends. If you live in Utah or Idaho, Mormonism is the primary religion and you can’t go two blocks without seeing a church building.

When I got to high school I attended Seminary every day (basically church school for teens) and my senior year I was actually on the seminary council - a group of kids who got their kicks because they were the most righteous. That was the year I started to doubt, and doubt hard. Everything on the surface of the church seemed good and nice, but there were little things here and there that bothered me. I was told to “doubt my doubts before I doubted my faith” and that if I sought the Lord in sincere prayer, that he would answer me and I would know for sure the church was true. 

And I did pray. I prayed and fasted and did everything I could. I read my scriptures and attended church and did the best I could in my church callings. I never received an answer. And of course that made me feel like I wasn’t trying hard enough. So I doubled my efforts and ended up having a nervous breakdown because I was a doubter and God didn’t want to speak to me because of that. 

Around this same time I was also starting to come to terms with my sexuality which only made me feel worse about the whole thing, because homosexuality is a sin in mormonism, as it is in most major Christian religions.

Finally after a full year of radio silence from God despite my best efforts and humbling myself and truly wanting an answer, I started to research on my own. If God wasn’t going to give me the answers I needed, then I was going to find them for myself. And thanks to my research, I came to the conclusion that none of it was true. Which makes it sound like an easy process, but it took a long time and it emotionally hurt me reading so many contradictory things. Because I had truly loved the church. When I came to the conclusion that it wasn’t true, I honestly felt like a part of me had died.

After my revelation I went away to college and cut myself off from the church. I made some amazing friends who helped me realize how awesome being gay is, and that no religion can determine my worth. But I still felt the loss of the church and ended up in a huge depressive episode that ultimately made me drop out of college. I’m still trying to pick up the pieces of my life and consolidate everything I know with my relationships with my loved ones who still believe. The guilt-trips I got from family and “friends” when I stopped going to church were insane.

And then a new policy was released in November of 2016 stating that if a child of a gay couple wanted to join the church, they could not be baptised until they were 18, and they had to publicly disavow their parents’ lifestyle before they would be allowed to join the church. The church was literally making children turn on their loving parents to join a church. The effects of this policy were horrendous. There was a spike in Utah lgbt teen suicides as a result. I was horrified and disgusted, and that’s when I decided that, even though I hadn’t been to church in years and that I knew it was absolute garbage, I could not have my name tied in any way to this organization. So I drafted a formal resignation letter to send to the church administration building and demanded that they take my name off their membership records. 

I’m still facing repercussions for that decision from family members. To a lot of them, it’s like I’ve died. Because to resign from the church means you cancel all the effects of baptism and any saving ordinance you received while a member. Meaning, I won’t be exalted and I won’t be with my family forever when I die. And even though I know it’s not true, it was such a huge aspect of my life and personality from the day I was born, that I’ve struggled having an identity since I left. Having a spiritual crisis seems like an easy thing on paper, but it is so much more complex than a lot people make it out to be. Right now I don’t have the ability to see a future for myself where I am finally done being affected by mormonism, but every day I get a step closer if that makes sense.

This answer has been long enough, so I didn’t have a chance to touch on the abuses within the church, gaslighting, magical underwear, how the church is actively covering up and excusing sexual assault, how children as young as 12 are subjected to private worthiness interviews where sexually explicit questions may be asked by an adult man, how the first Prophet of the church who “translated” the Book of Mormon was a treasure hunter who had multiple wives and married girls as young as 14 years old, or eternal polygamy (not the same as polyamory which I fully support mind you). Plus much much more. My research was extensive.

But hopefully that gives you a “brief” explanation of my experience escaping from the mormon cult.

[glittergummicandypeach]

How an 1843 Revelation on Polygamy Poses a Serious Challenge to Modern Mormonism | Religion Dispatches

This week, new legislation goes into effect in Utah that decriminalizes polygamy among consenting adults. The development, which was voted on in February, was a long-time coming. But while many decriminalization bills have been proposed over the years—Utah’s polygamy laws are the harshest in the entire country—what made this one successful was not who was involved, but who stood quietly to the side: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The LDS Church remains a dominant force in the state, and until recently worked hard to cease any attempts to soften the state’s polygamy laws. This time, however, their silence was deafening, and it allowed the bill to pass.

Mormonism has always been inseparably connected to these policies. Utah was granted statehood in 1896, only after LDS leaders promised to give up the faith’s controversial, yet defining, feature. And though the church took more than another decade to fully divorce itself from the practice, for much of the twentieth century Mormon leaders and politicians alike were unfailing in their quest to purge the state of polygamists, adopting, as noted above, America’s most strident anti-polygamy policies.

Part of that drive was due to the state constitution’s explicit criminalization of polygamy. But another part, and perhaps a major driver within the LDS portion of the agitation, is modern Mormonism’s continued anxiety over the practice itself.

Though an official manifesto publicly ended the practice of plural marriage in 1890, and a second manifesto in 1904 made the restriction official, the doctrine of a man being sealed to multiple wives never fully disappeared. Indeed, the ghost of polygamy’s past, and the threat of polygamy’s future, continues to haunt many Latter-day Saints who are otherwise conditioned to embrace monogamy and sacralize the American image of a nuclear family. 

These anxieties have remarkably precise historic roots. At the heart of the issue is a single, yet overwhelming, scriptural text. Dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, and now known as Doctrine and Covenants 132, the manuscript was forged in the fire of marital conflict, secret teachings, and swirling rumors. It was created for an intended audience of one, yet now remains binding on millions. 

And the document’s various legacies continue to shape how the modern LDS tradition views gender, marriage, and the church itself.

Even though the entire text is found in the scriptural books most Latter-day Saints carry with them to Sunday meetings—either in book form or, increasingly, as an app—few members of the faith understand the document’s contested origins. And fewer still understand how it continues to shape the religious community around them. 

The controversial document that resulted from a summer morning conflict in 1843, yet continues to influence a now-global church, then, demonstrates modern Mormonism’s continual struggle with prophetic authority, scriptural inerrancy, and gendered realities. 

More broadly, it reveals the constant tension religions must negotiate: maintaining some form of religious consistency while also adapting to new cultural expectations.

Plural marriage begins with a secret rendezvous  

The Spring and Summer months of 1843 were among the toughest of Joseph and Emma Smith’s marriage. They had already faced a number of crises in their nearly two decades together, including the death of children, threats of violence, and forced migrations. Being the founding family of a growing and controversial church with tens of thousands had taken its toll. 

Yet nothing had challenged their union as much as their first few years in Nauvoo, where they settled in 1839. It was there, in a quickly growing Mormon city-state, that Joseph Smith began preaching his most radical doctrines, none more controversial than plural marriage. 

Details of the practice’s origins are murky due to the paucity of contemporary records. While some posit Joseph Smith’s first plural union to take place in Kirtland during the 1830s, polygamy truly began in earnest during the winter months of 1840-41, alongside his evolving ideas of priesthood rituals, all formulated in the shadow of a towering temple then being built on the bluff overlooking the growing town. 

Indeed, it was on the eve of the Nauvoo Temple’s cornerstone ceremony, on April 5, 1841, that Smith likely entered his first plural marriage. On that day, Smith and his bride, Louisa Beman, who was disguised in men’s clothing, held a secret rendezvous in a grove of trees just outside the city. By the end of the year, Smith was sealed—the Mormon term for married for eternity—to at least two more women.

Over the next eighteen months, the theology that justified and framed the practice continued to evolve. What remained consistent, however, was Smith’s belief in the importance of the doctrine, as well as the growing number of people initiated into the order. And though the prophet tried to stop the rumors from spreading, an increasing number of prominent figures outraged by the alleged practice were dedicated to root out the truth. 

Among those trying to expose the practice and its participants were Joseph’s brother, Hyrum, as well as his wife, Emma. 

Then, in May of 1843, in a radical reversal based on a mixture of theological reasoning and pragmatic cooperation, the two members of Joseph’s close family surprisingly shifted course and accepted the practice. Hyrum, exultant at the chance of being united with the two women he loved, could then be sealed to his current wife, Mary Fielding, as well as to his deceased wife, Jerusha. 

Emma, for her part, initially approved her husband being sealed to two sets of sisters—one pair, Emily and Eliza Partridge, had already been sealed to Joseph months before, but they orchestrated a second union to hide the existence of the first—and was then finally sealed to Joseph herself. 

Yet if Hyrum remained polygamy’s most ardent convert, Emma’s support proved fleeting. It’s likely she didn’t know all the details or scope of her husband’s unions—by the end of that summer, the number of women sealed to him was in the thirties—and every time she encountered new information a conflict would follow

Finally, in early July, things reached a breaking point. Hyrum, eager to help, invited Joseph to his office on the morning of July 12 and urged him to dictate a revelation outlining the theology of plural marriage. He hoped that just as the doctrine had permanently converted him, it could finally do the same for Emma. Joseph acquiesced and produced a 3,300-word revelation “on the order of the priesthood.” Hyrum, still convinced that he was the one who could finally reach his sister-in-law, then rushed the text, ink still wet, over to Emma’s home, armed with what he believed were infallible truths.

The mission failed. When Hyrum returned, he reported that he had received the sternest rebuke of his life. The next day, after he had already made a copy of the text, Joseph allowed Emma to destroy the document that symbolized, for her, so much pain.

Circumstances did not immediately improve over the next few weeks. At one point, Joseph worried that Emma was going to take a plural spouse of her own; at another, Emma threatened Joseph with divorce. Eventually, they reached a truce, but only when Joseph promised to not take any more plural wives. A tenuous peace then remained until the next March, when Emma once again publicly denounced her husband’s private doctrines.

Yet even after that heated moment eventually subsided, which culminated in a dissident movement and Joseph’s death at the hands of a mob, that fateful summer still resulted in a number of legacies. 

Polygamy is abandoned after government opposition. Sort of. 

The text of the revelation itself, which remained secret while the Saints resided in Nauvoo, was finally made public in 1852 when the church was settled in Utah. It was there that they announced their controversial marital practice to the world. The revelation was then canonized as LDS scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1878, making plural marriage an official part of their sacred record.

But the federal government refused to relent in its attempt to abolish the practice. Church leaders, at first, strenuously opposed the increasingly draconian legislation and increased prosecution, and for much of the 1880s governed the church while in hiding; fidelity to the principle was more important than obedience to the law. Yet the situation eventually grew dire enough that LDS authorities announced the official end of polygamy in 1890.

But even then, it wasn’t the doctrine of polygamy that was disavowed, but merely its practice. Indeed, the fact that polygamy was concluded with a “Declaration,” rather than a revelation, reflected the anxiety over whether a doctrine could ever really be recalled.

And because the text of the polygamy revelation is still part of the LDS canon, the theology enshrined within it has continued to have a presence in the modern church. Indeed, portions of the revelation are among the most popular among the Saints due to the fact that they contained the clearest teachings concerning the eternal nature of marriage. 

The passages that explicitly justify polygamy, on the other hand, are often glossed over or ignored altogether, seen as irrelevant to a modern church that has embraced monogamy.

Not everyone is satisfied with that uneasy position, however. Lacking a repudiation of the old doctrine, the specter of polygamy still haunts many within the faith. Outside of the official LDS Church, dozens of break-off “fundamentalist” churches, supported by thousands of members throughout the Rocky Mountain region, cling to the traditional doctrine of polygamy, needling the larger institution for betraying foundational doctrines. 

Indeed, it was, in part, due to the presence of these fundamentalists that led Mormon leaders to anxiously prosecute polygamists throughout the twentieth century; distancing themselves from these marginalized sects was an indirect way of distancing the institution from its own past.

Yet even within the LDS Church, a man can still be sealed to multiple women, so long as he’s only married to one living woman at a time. Indeed, Russell M. Nelson, the current president of the faith, is sealed to both Danzel White, who passed away in 2005, as well as Wendy Watson, whom he married the next year. LDS women have therefore expressed the anxiety caused by this persisting dynamic, a deeply-felt worry that polygamy has only been temporarily ceased but will be restored in the next life. 

Plural marriage, in other words, remains a live possibility as long as it’s part of the scriptural canon. 

Further, beyond the explicit defense of polygamy, D&C 132 also contains some of the most direct statements concerning eternal gender roles in LDS scripture. At his first press conference as church president, Nelson explicitly drew from the revelation when he explained that a woman’s divine purpose is to birth and care for children. 

The juxtaposition between these patriarchal ideals and contemporary gender values is increasingly stark. Yet even as church leaders have softened official rhetoric concerning women in the workplace and men presiding in the home, the blunt teachings found in the polygamy revelation only allow so much flexibility. The boundaries of what’s deemed acceptable are still tethered to the words Joseph Smith dictated in 1843. 

How can the faith remain true to its own prophetic tradition while still adapting to an ever-changing world?

Reckoning with a written revelation

The only historical topic that has caused a similar degree of consternation among Latter-day Saints as polygamy is the church’s troubled past with those of African descent. Until 1978, Black Mormons were not granted full membership rights, as men were forbidden to hold the priesthood and both men and women were barred from the temple. During this long tenure, a number of prominent LDS leaders provided theological justification for the practice, and many claimed that the policy had revelatory origins.

In recent years the church has distanced itself from those ideas, however. Though the ‘Gospel Topics’ essay (similar to Catholic Dogma) they produced on the issue falls short of explicitly declaring the past practice a human mistake, though it doesn’t reject that possibility, either. Once believed to be a divinely appointed doctrine, then, the racial restriction is now mostly seen as a bygone, if uncomfortable, error.

Could the same conclusion ever be reached with Mormonism’s other defining nineteenth-century practice, polygamy?

Again, the biggest stumbling block is D&C 132. Like modern adherents of just about every other religion, modern Mormons have become increasingly capable, if begrudgingly so, at ignoring uncomfortable statements, beliefs, and practices of past leaders when they clash with modern priorities. But the presence of a written revelation makes it a much more difficult issue.

The document created to convert a single person in 1843, then, is the largest reason millions of members in 2020 are still forced to wrestle with the practice.

History could have turned out differently: Emma Smith could have decided not to put up a fight; Hyrum Smith could have decided not to convert to the doctrine and become its most zealous defender; Joseph Smith could have refused to dictate a word; those who followed the Smiths could have chosen to not canonize the text. Yet because these decisions were made, July 12, 1843, remains one of the most consequential dates in Mormon history, and the LDS Church continues to deal with the fallout of the events that took place that summer morning.

Modern Mormonism prides itself on its doctrine of an open canon—the belief that the corpus of scripture can be expanded and augmented by modern-day proclamations from prophetic leaders. But what happens when contemporary values, like gender equality and monogamous marriage, clash with canonized doctrines, like polygamy? Can the faith ever revoke canonized teachings, or would such a move strip their leaders of necessary authority?

The LDS tradition points toward a flexible future predicated upon revelatory intervention. But until Mormons find a way to simultaneously engage the legacies of their past—including Smith’s revelation on polygamy—contemporary Saints will live in a state of constant anxiety.

This content was originally published here.

[netflixanthrothings-blog]

Lust Stories Netflix Review - YSJ

‘Lust Stories’ is an anthology that explores contemporary relationships in modern India. I have chosen to use ‘Lust Stories’ for this assignment as the directors of each tale have successfully highlighted issues rarely portrayed in moving pictures. The issues explored in the stories include the idea and reality of marriage from a female’s perspective, in the Indian culture, and feminism.

Before I analyse each of the stories, the following is a summary of the chosen stories. In the first film directed by Anurag Kashyap, the story started with a woman named Kalindi that had sex with a man called Tejas. She was worried that he might become emotionally attached to her, but as the story unfolded, the audience realizes that Kalindi is the one who has become emotionally attached to Tejas. There were some parts of the film where Kalindi talks as if she is in a interview and mentioned that she was married to an older man, Mihir, who had previously dated many women before her and allowed her to explore and understand herself because she never had the opportunity to. In one of the scenes, she mentioned that she loves both Tejas and Mihir, but she could not be with the both of them because they felt insecure and jealous. However, she did not hold herself back from loving two of them. After her obsession with him, she confronted him and Tejas was willing to leave Natasha (the girl he was seeing) for her, which Kalindi replied that she is already married, leaving him speechless.

In the third film, the tale begins with a carefree couple, Reena and Sudhir, along the beach. It follows with love-making and cuts to the scene where in the midst of a conversation, Reena’s husband which is also Sudhir’s best friend, Salman called him and said he wanted to end his life because his wife wasn’t home to take care of the kids. He mentioned that throughout the course of their thirteen years marriage, she was only happy for eleven months. When three of them were in Sudhir’s place, it was revealed that she has been in a relationship with Sudhir and she was unhappy because Sudhir wants a mother, not a wife. After Reena and Salman spent the night together, she decided to return home for the sake of the children.

In the last film, a young teacher, Megha was arranged to wed Paras but after marrying him, she realised that their sex life is a zero-sum game wherein Paras’ sexual desire is always satisfied but he remained unaware of her sexual dissatisfaction. Megha discovered that her colleague, Rekha, using a vibrator to pleasure herself in the library and she stated, “Men are selfish. They cannot make a woman happy. We have to do it ourselves.” Out of curiousity, Megha decides to take the vibrator home to give it a try. However, while Paras comes home after a rickshaw accident, Megha, her mother-in-law and sister-in-law rushed to the living room to help him out. Unbeknownst to Megha, Paras’ grandmother found the vibrator controller and mistook it for the TV remote control, and increased the intensity until Megha reached sexual climax in the living room. Paras’ family wanted a divorce because her womb wasn’t suitable to bore children. A month later, they met up and he said he can put the past behind because it was a mistake, but Megha corrected him and said “it was not a mistake...women desire more than just children”.

This anthology is broadcasted via Netflix, therefore they would be an international audience who are able to explore female sexuality in India, providing atypical insight - a subject rarely dealt with in Indian films.

Majority of Bollywood films depict the lavish lifestyles of the rich and privileged in India. Nonetheless, according to Rao (2007), the participants of the research imply that these films do not represent India’s reality - a nation predominantly plagued with poverty and gender discrimination. In the first film, Kalindi (Screwvala & Dua, 2018c, 14:55) believes that she is allowed to love more than one person at the same time, however polygamy is reckoned to be wrong in India’s society, because love and marriage are known as a sacred bond between one man and his wife. This part of the film discusses women’s sexuality whereby it is acceptable to feel a romantic or sexual attraction to more than one person.

The definition of a “true” woman in the context of Indian society is devoted, caring, motherly homemaker, respected and loved, who is responsible for birth of the children (Dhawan, 2005). They were married off young, hence this women have no access to education and eventually abide with the norm whereby women should be homemakers and for future generations to do the same. Many Indian women accept their roles in their society as almost every daughter of a family, from young are encultured to be a future mother and reproduce and take care of a family. Women who are not mothers are deemed as deviant and incomplete, regardless of whether they are barren or actively chose to prioritize their careers first. As a result, these women acquire identity through traditional roles of being “good” wives, that presumably conditions them to be “good wives” and makes deviant women feel guilty to not live up to the standards labelled as “good” (Bhambhani & Inbanathan, 2018a).

Reena wanted to leave her husband due to the emotional abuse and the fact that Salman wedded her for his own selfish motives - in search of a mother, not a wife (Screwvala & Dua, 2018a, 1:17:45). Megha’s mother (Screwvala & Dua, 2018b, 1:32:53) mentioned that after being married, she will be content with her sexual life with Paras but it did not turn out that way. Similarly to them, there are several Indian women who still choose to get married because of the societal pressure that forces them to do so or they would be considered a disgrace to their family. When women’s behaviour do not conform to society’s expectations, such as complaining or talking back to their husbands; the husbands usually react with violence (Sharma, 2015). Violence in this context includes physical, emotional and sexual, and in a particular study, this research estimated that 4 in 10 Indian women reported experiencing domestic violence in their lifetime (Kalohke et al, 2016).

So the question remains: if India had not been colonised or affected by globalisation, would the Indian culture - specifically the rights of the women in India, be compromised? Nationalists believe in placing primary emphasis on promotion of its national culture, whereby women are kept out of education and employment and influence of westernization could preserve sanctified womanhood (Bhambhani & Inbanathan, 2018b). In the same context, cultural relativism would consider individuals’ cultural practices and ideology to be acceptable, thus becoming a norm to ignore fighting against what Westerners identify as the oppression of women (Peters, 2017). On the other hand, social reformers advocate for women’s rights based on the belief that the European idea of what to advocate or not to advocate for is superior, in other words - ethnocentrism. In this case, feminism would be denying human rights of Indian women. Since the idea of feminism is colonized, where individuals that view feminism form a white feminist culture perspective, differ from the insight of female rights in non-Western countries (Runyan, 2018), I feel that feminism should be practiced but in a decolonized form.

Watching ‘Lust Stories’ gave me the opportunity to passively immerse myself in the lives of women, outside of my culture, and learn how marriage, family and gender roles within these two systems differ between cultures, which may have been difficult to teach within classroom as not all of us come from the same cultural backgrounds and understanding. I believe that it is an exceptionally well addition to the course because it provided insight on how women as a class are oppressed and subdued by the hegemony of social patriarchy, where emotional, economic and social values associated with having children have made procreation a strong social expectation. Additionally, the struggles with proper representation of women in films which are sporadically discussed.

This is my favourite part among the four stories because it reminded me of a funny tweet (refer below). In this particular scene, Paras arrives at sexual climax before Megha reaches the count of five. On top of that, it reminded me of how most men are unbothered about women’s sexual discontentment.

[trekdom]

The Next Generation S01E04: Code of Honor [revisited]

Now, this particular episode is one that I do remember watching. I want to keep this short, as my reviews tend to be quite long. Let me know which format you enjoy better, my so very few loyal followers lol.

On this episode there were quite a few interesting themes swirling around. The enterprise was visiting a foreign world (Legon 2) to make an alliance with them that would allow them to use a vaccine that is native to their planet in order to save people dying (on another federation planet) of an ailment that only this particular plant could heal. Gestures of goodwill are made between the two parties to aid in this exchange. 

When we met this group, they were a very tribal people, with heavy Africanistic ways. They had a “primitive” culture so to speak, with marriages arranged, as we initially learn, men can have multiple wives. We also learn that men may run the world, but women own all the land, so a man’s power is assessed by how much land he owns via his multiple wives.

The people are also “misogynistic” as  they are baffled by the idea that a woman (Lt. Yar) could be the head of the ship’s security. When Lutan’s second in command goes to give Captain Picard the vaccine sample, Yar interjects, citing her stance as Chief of Security to check anything before the Captain. Lutan’s second in command tries to bypass Yar and is flipped for his troubles. You can begin to see Lutan’s intrigue of Yar develop here.

Yar later on gives Lutan an display of how the holodeck works, using its fighting program to show her skills. At this point we know Lutan want’s something from Yar (hint hint). As they are about to leave, Lutan grabs Lt. Yar and transporters her down to the planet.

We learn later that because of the complexities of the vaccine Legon possesses, they cannot replicate it with out it breaking down. Picard is now tasked with rescuing Yar and still being able to procure enough of the vaccine to stop the death tolls on one of the Federations Planets.

Picard decides to go along with the customs of Legon and see how this situation can play out. In order to get what they need, the Enterprise and its crew have to follow along to the ways in which Legon’s code of honor works. At this point, Lutan has proven how brave he was by committing such a daring feat on the federation and they must ask politely for the return of Yar. Captain Picard does this, but Lutan in return invites the Captain and his crew to come visit them for a “proper” return of Lt. Yar.

Ok, this is starting to get long again. Long story short, they visit the planet, Lutan proclaims he wants to take Yar and make her his 1st wife, his current 1st wife disagrees and challenges Yar to a fight to the death for the right to be Lutan’s first. If Yar doesn’t compete, the federation will receive no vaccine. Yar agrees, to the disdain of the Captain, and they go back to the ship to figure out how to make this work. 

We learn a little bit about this code of honor and its leways when Lutan speaks of his ultimate plan with his second in command. We learn how if his 2nd wife is killed, he automatically gets all of her land, so either way he wins. Yar and the wife fight, and during a point in the fight where Yar was winning, Lutan’s second in command cries out to Lutan’s wife to be careful. at the last moment, Yar stikes Lutan’s wife down dead. Yar jumps on top of the wife and they transport them both to sickbay. Lutan’s wife dies, but the Dr. Crusher is able to bring her back to life. This is revealed to Lutan, but he is furious as he believes they are lying. They inform him that they have medical proof of his wife dying and being brought back to life, thus participating on their end of the deal and now have to receive the vaccine. Lutan is furious, but his wife thinks otherwise. She mentions during the deathmatch that Lutan’s 2nd called out to her, and that mean enough to her to make him HER new number one, and that now Lutan must take his place as her #2, which he did. VERY interesting stuff. Then the Enterprise received their vaccine and crept off into the night.....err space.

The polygamy/polygyny themes intertwining with the code of honor ethics and “primitive African tribal people” planet was very interesting to revisit. I like how the power dynamics with the marriages worked, but there is honestly way too many themes than i want to discuss wrapped into this episode. It was good thought, a good episode.

[eng251unvoicedthoughts]

To all the seculars:

Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor, wrote Meditations, thoughts on stoic philosophy between 161- 180AD. Although this book tends to be more popular amongst seculars than the Bible, the amount of similarities between the two books is unexpected.

“You entered the world as a part, and you will vanish back into that which brought you to birth; or rather, you will be received back into its generative reason through a process of change” (Aurelius 26). This strikes similarity with John: 3 in The Bible when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, ruler of the Jews. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” to which Nicodemus answers, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?” (p. 1328).

“Rarely is a person seen to be in a bad way because he has failed to attend to what is happening in someone else’s soul, but those who fail to pay careful attention to the motions of their own souls are bound to be in a wretched state” (Aurelius 12). When Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount St. Mathew 7: 3, the same concept is taught, “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (p. 1197).

Another comparison between the two accords can be made regarding Aurelius’s description of Maximus in his last days, “How he behaved to the tax-collector at Tusculum who asked for his forgiveness, and his general conduct in such matters. He was never harsh, or implacable, or overbearing-” (Aurelius 8). This is similar to the forgiveness shown in The Bible when Jesus is giving the parable of the self- righteous pharisee and the humbled publican. Within St Luke 18: 12-14 it reads, “I fast twice in the week I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner” (p. 1308). Both stories hold the emphasized motif of being kind to someone that debt is owed to.

At this point throughout Aurelius’s writings I begin thinking that Meditations, to me, reads as a characterless version of The Bible and in doing so, provides a stripped version of religion down to the basic beliefs of spirituality. Sam Harris, author of Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion explains the taboo structure behind defining or even comparing spirituality to religion, “They don’t always point to the same underlying reality- and when they do, they don’t do it equally well. Nor are all these teachings equally suited for export beyond the cultures that first conceived them… In one sense, all religions and spiritual practices must address the same reality- because people of all faiths have glimpsed many of the same truths” (Harris 20). Harris goes on to explain that the fact that many religions have quoted from or adopted other religion’s beliefs, testifies that human interconnections outweigh the strength of religion. I find the ties between these two blatantly different accounts beautiful and a witness of the similarities between all human hearts and intellect.

 To all the religious Netflix lovers:

Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris offers the audience methods of meditation to serve as proxy of religion. As the title of the book would suggest, spirituality is brought to the forefront, allowing the reader to delve into their own spirituality while questioning the methods of religion. Referenced in the annotation for Educated: A Memoir, Harris explains the perceived deception that can happen within hierarchies of religion, “A relationship with a guru, or indeed with any expert, tends to run along authoritarian lines. You don’t know what you need to know, and the expert presumably does; that’s why you are sitting in front of him in the first place (Harris 159).

I recently was able to watch a couple episodes of Tiger King. Although I don’t fully understand the hype it’s generated, I couldn’t help but draw comparisons between the show, religion, and spirituality.

The staff working on these cat farms are paid $100 an hour, so other than working with exotic animals, why would they stay?

On Carole Baskin’s farm, she has organized a hierarchy through her employees through the color of shirts they wear. The longer they’ve worked there, the higher ranking of shirt they’re given, and the more attention received from Carole Baskin. This reminded me of the levels of priesthood within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Similar levels are given to the young women within the church as they progress through their teenage years. By being recognized through these levels, people are more likely to stay in particular organizations or cults.

Another element that stood out was the admittance to luring in those that only have that job as their last resort. They are in desperate need financially, emotionally or both. How many religious members are using their beliefs or their religious community as a refuge from what they’re dealing with and sometimes, because of this, refuse to believe anything else?

Within Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, it reads, “Let this saying of Epicurus come to your aid, that ‘pain is neither unendurable nor everlasting, if you keep its limits in mind and do not add to it through your own imagination’. And remember this too, that many disagreeable feelings are really just the same as pain although we do not perceive them to be so-” (Aurelius 67). Harris writes about pain and the customary quality of pain being perceived as negative until it is suddenly associated to growth, such as after a workout. Harris goes on to write about the emotional difference it would make if people regularly associated all pain with progression.

One of Joe Exotic’s employees ends up losing their arm due to a tiger attack. Although her arm ends up needing to be amputated, she jumps right back into work after her surgery. She did this so that Joe Exotic’s business wouldn’t face the repercussions of her injury. How many times do people subconsciously force themselves to believe in a prayer or a blessing given to them because brief disappointment is better than no longer having something to believe in?

 To all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints:

Within Educated: A Memoir by Tara Westover, Westover outlines some of her earliest memories growing up in Idaho as a Latter-Day-Saint. Emphasis is placed on the eccentrics of her family due to a self-inflicted sheltered life and unconventional religious views. Although Westover disclaims her experiences to have any affiliation with the church itself, being a Mormon that grew up in rural Idaho as well, I recognized similarities between our lives that should be addressed. To preface these similarities, I’ll first shed some light on the parallels that can be drawn between Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion by Sam Harris and Educated: A Memoir. Harris unveils an authoritative manipulation approach within religion. The “self-deception” and “exploited trust” one is susceptible to when being taught by a spiritual teacher can be due merely to the setup of them being the intellectual superior in that given situation. “The bishop and I met every Sunday until that spring. To me he was a patriarch with authority over me, but he seemed to surrender that authority the moment I passed through his door” (Westover 200). Although Westover paints her bishop in a more forgiving light, the fact that he had authority over her is not shied away from, it is written barefaced to help explain the gaping hierarchy. The hierarchy within the Bishop’s office followed her into her own home. Westover was abused mentally and physically by her older brother and mentally by her father. Nobody within the household would stand up to either male figure, even Westover’s mother was described many times to back down to the will of her father due to it being “a man’s house”. Although my family is very loving now and I am very fortunate, my household was once abusive as well, leaving my mother, my two older brothers, and me running from my father, staying with different friends of my mother’s to avoid my father finding us.  Maybe this is a coincidence and has nothing to do with the religion of my father, but I’ve always wondered if the hierarchy of males within the Mormon church has swayed the treatment of the women. Westover explains some of the teachings within the Latter-Day Saint church, “As a child I’d been taught-by my father but also in Sunday school that in the fullness of time God would restore polygamy, and in the afterlife, I would be a plural wife” (Westover 245). I, as well as most women within the church I’m sure, have always taken issue with this. Once, my sophomore year of college I asked my Bishop if it were reversed, and the men were told that in heaven they would be plural husbands to their wives, if he would still believe in the faith, to which he replied along the lines of, “Yes, if that were God’s will”. If the doctrine were changed, I honestly don’t see as many men being members of the church and I also don’t think sexism- against women, would be as prevalent. Harris writes of the account of Tibetan lama Chogyam Trungpa where he orders a young girl to be stripped of her clothing and paraded around. While this is sexual assault, Harris writes that Trungpa’s followers viewed this occurrence as “a spiritual teaching meant to subdue their egos” (Harris 160). Within The Last Podcast On the Left with Ben Kissel, Henry Zebrowski, and Marcus Parks also tackle a time when Latter-Day Saint prophet, Joseph Smith safeguarded his way through illegal, degrading actions. According to their findings, Joseph had an affair on his wife and was caught doing so, before announcing his revelation for polygamy. However, members of the Latter-Day Saint faith are told his reasons for polygamy were to ensure celestial glories for the women of that time since there were more women than men and the women would need to be sealed. How many other teachings of the church have subtly quieted women into uncomfortable acceptance? If not careful, will certain hierarchies within religions translate to feelings of superiority within the home?

Sources:

Aurelius, Marcus, et al. Meditations: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Bible: King James Version. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1979.

Harris, Sam. Waking up: a Guide to Spirituality without Religion. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2015.

Kissel, Ben, et al. “Episode 378: Mormonism Part I - When You're Here You're Family.” Castbox, The Last Podcast on the Left, 2019, castbox.fm/episode/Episode-378%3A-Mormonism-Part-I---When-You%E2%80%99re-Here-You%E2%80%99re-Family-id1383024-id177828673.

Westover, Tara. Educated: a Memoir. Random House, 2018.

[christianlivingtoday-blog]

Steps to Avoiding Fornication

How can we save ourselves from this disgraceful sin? We are all men of like passions subject to the same temptations as everyone else.

I believe the Lord has shown me some important steps that will keep us all from sin.  Four of these steps are spiritual and six are physical.  Let us start with the physical steps.

1.              No untimely relationships

Very young people should not enter into relationships for courtship.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

Ecclesiastes 3:1

There is a time for entering into a relationship.  Why do you want to enter into a relationship when you are still in school? You do not even have a job in sight!

In my church, I do not recognize relationships of teenagers.  I will advise you to break it in the name of Jesus! You worry yourself for nothing when you play with relationships at the wrong time.

2.                 Relationships only unto marriage

You must only enter into relationships that lead to marriage.  The only intimate relationship between men and women that God approves of is marriage.

A Christian man and woman must move towards God’s plan, and God’s plan is marriage.  When I proposed to my wife many years before I actually married her, I asked her two questions: “Can you marry a doctor? Can you marry a pastor?” Marriage was what I had in mind.  She was in love with me so she said yes! I had decided that I was going to marry her.  She was not just a friend or girlfriend.  She had passed on to become someone special—the person who was going to be my wife and the bearer of my children.

I remember asking a young man who had been in a relationship with a sister in church for two years, “Are you getting married?” His response was “I don’t think we will.  We are just in a relationship.”

I think a lady must be foolish to be in such a relationship.  The man is just using you, and will throw you away one day.  The relationships that God approves of are relationships that are headed towards His will; and His will is marriage!

If you know that your relationship is not going towards marriage, then it is just going towards fornication.  Stop right there!

3.                Holy relationships

The Bible says there is a time to “refrain from embracing.”

...a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;            

Ecclesiastes 3:5

If you are in a relationship, there is a time to refrain from embracing.  I can hold my wife, I can hug her and I will not be doing anything wrong.  But those of you who are not married are not expected to do so.  Even when you touch your fiancée’s hand, “osmosis” begins to occur!

In my church we have a few rules for counselling young people in relationships.  We do not just tell you to live a holy and a pure life, but you are specifically told what living holy entails.  You must only have holy relationships!

4.                Early marriage

I encourage people to marry young.  The more Christians delay the marriage ceremony, the more likely they are to end up living in sin.  What are you waiting for? In certain churches there are road blocks to marriage.  Couples are presented with so many obstacles to delay marriage.  But that should not be the case.

Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy YOUTH.

Proverbs 5:18

The Scripture encourages you to have a wife when you are young—the wife of your youth.  

Do not use the lack of money as an excuse, because you can marry if you really want to.  Marry whilst you are still young.  Do not wait until you have all the comfortable things in life before venturing into marriage.

When I decided to get married, somebody whispered to my wife to marry someone who had everything in life.  I certainly did not qualify because I had nothing!

I have been through some really hard times with my wife, when we did not have any money.  We had to warn our visitors to sit in a particular way because our chairs were weak and broken.  She even had to go abroad to work to buy us some furniture.  I have truly struggled with my wife, so I love her.  I did not have to wait until I was an old man to get married.

I love the people with whom I have been through struggles and difficulties.  They are different from those who have come in a time of total blessing.  When you are already established in life, you will have people interested in you because you are already blessed.

But the wife of your youth will marry you not because of what you have, but because of who you are.  It is a blessing to marry young.

5.                Non-polygamous marriage

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 2:25

The only person you must be naked with is your wife; not your girlfriend, fiancée, nurse or secretary.  You are not supposed to have any other wife.  God does not endorse polygamy.  A polygamous lifestyle encourages fornication.

In Ghana, we have “official” polygamy, where a man maintains two or three wives.  But there is an “unofficial” version of polygamy which is practised by most successful people in Ghana.  They have an official wife whom they take to official functions and appear in public with.  

There are also the unofficial women in the lives of these men.  And this is common practice by most of the “big shots” in our society.  Such men have no intention of divorcing their wives.  They will spend the weekends at special places with these “side” girls.  They travel with them to Paris, and generally have a good time with them.  But they still maintain the official marriage.

We must keep this culture of unofficial polygamy far from us, if we want to avoid fornication.

6.                Sexually active marriages

We need to have sexually active marriages.  There are many marriages which are not sexually active.  It is amazing that before people get married they want to hold and touch each other, but when they get married they can lie by each other like logs.  Why commit fornication when you can commit love.

Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.  

Proverbs 5:15  

Sex can be likened to drinking water.  And we drink water several times in a day.  So the Bible admonishes you to have sex several times, so you will not thirst for any other woman.  There is more symbolic language in Proverbs 5.  

Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad,

Proverbs 5:16

What in sex looks like a fountain? God’s rule for healthy marriages is that the fountains should be allowed to disperse abroad.  You must allow the fountains to flow.  Some fountains have been closed two weeks or six months.  Such fountains are not blessed!

…and rivers of waters in the streets.

Proverbs 5:16

What could these streets be? If the fountains are going to flow into the streets, then God says:

Let them be only thine OWN, and not strangers’...

Proverbs 5:17

Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times...                      

Proverbs 5:19

If you are married, your wife’s breasts must satisfy you at all times! Why should you be playing with somebody’s breast, when you have your own wife’s?  

One of the ways to prevent fornication if you are married is to have sex regularly.  When you eat and are satisfied, you do not feel like eating any more.  

Women, especially, should know that when they have sex regularly with their husbands, they prevent them from having extramarital affairs.  A man of God fell into sin.  I was sitting with him after he admitted he had impregnated one of his church members; he was crying.  I was so sad, and I wanted to know how it happened.  

He described the difficulties of sex he had with his wife.  She did not want to have sex with him.  She kept complaining that she was tired, or cold.  As soon as the husband committed adultery, she became active.  She realized her husband’s adultery was a product of what was going on at home.  

Some wives are just waiting for their husbands to commit adultery and then they will wake up!

by Dag Heward-Mills

[angrycollectordaze-me-blog]

Paper代写：Islamic marriage

本篇paper代写- Islamic marriage讨论了伊斯兰的婚姻制度。在世界多元的婚姻法律文化中，伊斯兰婚姻制度极具特色。在诸如婚姻关系的缔结和解除等方面都无不深深打上了宗教的烙印，但不可否认的是其理念与内涵也具有一定程度的价值上的合理性。随着婚姻法律文化的碰撞与交融，伊斯兰婚姻制度也必将面对世人好奇与质疑的目光，面对人类社会发展所积淀下来的共有的婚姻价值观念。本篇paper代写由51due代写平台整理，供大家参考阅读。

​In the pluralistic marriage law culture in the world, the Islamic marriage system is very distinctive. In concluding relationship such as marriage, maintain and remove all deeply marked by religion, but it is undeniable that the concept and connotation of also has a certain degree of value rationality. The moral content of faithful, tolerant, conscientious and other marital relations has been elevated by Islam to a high level of belief, where people urge themselves and regulate their behaviors because of sincere belief.

The marriage system of Islam is often criticized by the world, but it is undeniable that it has always been showing the connotation of kindness and generosity to human society. From sorting out the lost morality of the society in the founding period to maintaining the stability and harmony of the Islamic family, it has proved that its connotation is reasonable in value to a certain extent. As the collision and blending of the marriage law culture, Islamic marriage system will face the curious and questioning gaze, in the face of the accumulation of human social development value concept of marriage.

Marriage in the Islamic marriage system is seen as a natural responsibility, an act of faith. The quran talks about the "creation" of Allah, which refers to the evolution of human creation and the continuation of the evolution by endowing human beings with the nature of male and female union. In addition to the Koran, the sermon also expresses the naturalness and responsibility of marriage. In addition, the Islamic marriage system emphasizes the importance of the family. When the Islamic marriage system is used to build social stability, it highlights the importance of the family and is a common concern for the individual and the society.

First of all, marriage in the Islamic marriage system is based on the will of men and women. Marriage self-selection is revered. Marriage self-selection is one of the important factors to create a happy marriage. A marriage of one's own will can raise the expectation of a harmonious and happy family, thus ensuring macro-social stability. Therefore, it is consistent with the values of the society. Secondly, in the Islamic religious system, there is still room for marriage under the will of men and women, that is, the system of consent of guardians. This is used to supplement the marriage since the selection system, the opinions of the guardian goodwill should get the respect of the parties, carefully listen to and accept, let the guardian is more rational and realistic to fill the lack of thinking by the parties. Third, the Islamic marriage system opposes the sale of marriage, arranged marriage. This marriage is respect the will of self reflection, its practical significance lies in carefully to reduce the possibility of a conflict in marriage, so the possibility of marriage, family and social shake was also decreased.

What does the spirit of the Islamic marriage system express that is truly worthy of admiration, based on such value orientations as the initial motivation and ultimate goal of marriage

Admittedly, some factors based on desire often influence some people's choice of marital value, such as the desire for power and money. Islam, however, marriage is a union between a man and a love to believers that is rejected on the grounds of wife color, rich choice of value orientation, it is to maintain purity of marriage, is to protect the value of marriage.

Going back to its historical roots, polygamy, which was permitted by the Islamic marriage system, was initially a last resort act of benevolence. After the battle of Woodward, Muslim men died so much that many of their wives and children were left alone. Investigate its nomadic economic social background, widow hardly and orphans live independently, how to make much of widows and orphans live on and became a difficult problem, at the same time and to avoid social relationships so no chapter caused confusion. It is against this background the polygamist system has carried on the legalization, giving the widow id depend on legal identity and existence, life, and that women can get social recognition under lawful wife should have the rights and interests. Polygamous consent comes with severe restrictions. On the one hand, "four names" is the limit on the number of wives you can marry. On the other hand, "fair" is necessary to have multiple wives, otherwise there will be corresponding punishment.

Therefore, polygamy is not a religious obligation, but a religious tolerance reflected in the marriage system of Islam. In the initial stage is not indulgence to encourage more wife, just under the specific environment for fixed family structure, clear relationship between members, safeguarding the rights and interests of women a "permit", comes out of the widow of Islam to the social orphans and slave kind caring allow expediency properties, are not permanently advocate.

The quran talks about the equality between men and women without any difference, which is to equate the status and personality of men and women. Before religion came into being, women in Arab society had a low status and could be trampled on by others until the whole society trampled on their personality. The concept of equality in Islam is precious, and such spirit is reflected in the establishment of marriage system of Islam, which is a glorious system of human nature.

At first, the status of marriage parties was unmatched, husbands could abuse freely, wives had no right to resist. Islam exhorts couples to love and cherish each other, so as to achieve marital harmony and social moral awakening, in line with the pursuit of social values.

Peaceful and secure families are what Islam seeks, and divorce is anathema. But divorce is still tolerated in Islamic legislation, because divorce is a consequence, not a cause. If divorce is absolutely not allowed, then if the conflict is indeed irreconcilable, it will continue and may worsen indefinitely. Divorce is allowed, disputes that are difficult to resolve can be stopped, and the parties are given the opportunity to re-enter into marriage.

In the process of divorce in Islam, there is a series of redeeming processes, among which the reconciliation between husband and wife is valued. Under the mediation of a third party, I will calm down my emotions, adjust myself and redeem myself, so as to achieve family happiness again and reduce the divorce under the impulse of emotion.

The divorce rules of Islam are complicated, especially in the system of pending marriage. The marriage rights and obligations of both parties are still required to continue during the marriage period, giving sufficient time for both parties to treat divorce cautiously and conservatively. The unique design of the waiting period has profound significance. Ethically, this is more care and protection for pregnant women, and it is a way to avoid harm to weak pregnant women and their newborn children. It is also a public statement of the birth lineage of the child. In emotion, it is mainly manifested in recovery and redemption. On the one hand, in the process of counting and passing the pending marriage period, the couple should weigh the marriage and think about the family with a new attitude. On the other hand, it prompts introspection to understand that divorce can cause great loss and harm to oneself, the other party and family members.

Number and remarried object limit to overcome a casual attitude towards divorce, the parties before the divorce, especially for the wedding in precipitated the estrangement, pain, carefully treat reality, give up the idea of divorce.

Loyal, tolerant, responsible, such as the moral content in a relationship, has been upgraded to the height of faith of Islam, people pushed himself, because of the sincere faith standard behavior, with the gentle character as the guidance of marriage and family life, to overcome the long marriage life difficult bumpy, maintaining family peaceful and stable. We also recommended the obligations and virtue, although we don't have such a belief, but only can be "promoted" the extent of the rise, in the field of ethics to strengthen it, to become a widespread recognition and practice values, make the party in the consciousness of subject, cognitive, emotional bias on mandatory as by morality, which can affect what we say.

要想成绩好，英国论文得写好，51due代写平台为你提供英国留学资讯，专业辅导，还为你提供专业英国essay代写，paper代写，report代写，需要找论文代写的话快来联系我们51due工作客服QQ：800020041或者Wechat：Abby0900吧。

[republicstandard]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is in Denial on Islam and Immigration

It is quite strange watching our leaders wrestle with difficult concepts in public. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Church of England, is no exception. When evidence is considered, the very idea of endorsing open border policies becomes laughable, but for one reason or another it is more common to ignore the blindingly obvious in favour of a comfortable abdication of responsibility. Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury has one hand on the truth, but the other is clamped firmly over his eyes to prevent him from seeing it. Fumbling around like a blind man, he attempts to describe problems facing British society using only what he can feel with his fingertips.

On the 23rd of February 2018, Welby contradicted his predecessor, Lord Williams, by stating that Sharia Law could not be incorporated into British society. Justin Welby said the Islamic rules are incompatible with Britain’s laws, which have developed over 500 years on the principles of a different culture.

He added that high levels of immigration from Muslim countries can:

"have an impact on the accepted pattern for choosing a partner, on assumed ages of maturity and sexual activity, and especially on issues of polygamy".

Th Archbishop is quite correct here. In his remarks, he recognizes that demographics dictate policy and social norms. He recognizes in his own book that large volumes of Islamic migration to the United Kingdom have led to challenges for the British norms as migrant populations seek to impose their own values. As I wrote in these pages a week ago,

Civic nationalism, the very societies around us, are intrinsically linked to the ethnicity of the people who described those common civic values.

Welby is still ruminating on this simple truth.

"The problem is reimagining Britain through values applied in action can only work where the narrative of the country is coherent and embracing. Sharia, which has a powerful and ancient cultural narrative of its own, deeply embedded in a system of faith and understanding of God, and thus especially powerful in forming identity, cannot become part of another narrative.

‘Accepting it in part implies accepting its values around the nature of the human person, attitudes to outsiders, the revelation of God, and a basis for life in law, rather than grace, the formative word of Christian culture."

The Archbishop recognizes that Islamic values are rooted in the people of that faith, just as British values are rooted in Britons. He knows by his own proclamation that reconciling Sharia with the British legal system is utterly impossible. He recognizes that the Muslim cultural norm of marrying children and possessing multiple wives cannot be simply argued away by adherence to British values of tolerance and politeness. Still, he stops short of suggesting the logical next step; that in the United Kingdom polygamy is illegal and therefore such Islamic recognized marriages should not be considered legal by the state. He does not suggest that, perhaps, people who live in the United Kingdom should be forced to obey the law when it comes to the legal age of marriage as defined by Britons themselves.

Welby sees the problem but refuses to say anything coherent about the solution. Worse, just two days later in an article in the Daily Mail, he reverses his position almost entirely to be one that parrots what are essentially socialist talking points about migration and economics.

"Welcoming strangers to our country and integrating them into our culture is important. We must be generous and allow ourselves to change with the newcomers and create a deeper, richer way of life. We also need to support strongly those poorer communities that have had high levels of immigration."

Archbishop Welby, could you explain to us more about how we should not allow Sharia Law in Britain, but also allow ourselves to change with the newcomers?

What deeper, richer way of life are you referring to? What does this deeper and richer Britain look like? What values are we adopting from other cultures? What values of our own are we giving up? There are so many questions that you are leaving unanswered because you refuse to engage your considerable intellect.

The Anglican Inter Faith Commission, in Cairo for their first meeting, had the honour of meeting both His Holiness Pope Tawadros II and His Eminence Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, to learn from their experiences#AnglicanInterFaith #AnglicanNews #Anglican #Anglicans pic.twitter.com/vn5FgflCL4

— Anglican Communion (@ACOffice) February 21, 2018

The Archbishop also recognizes that throughout the Western world immigrants concentrate in urban areas leading to fragmented and ghettoized communities divided on ethnic and religious lines. He says nothing about how those communities should be supported through their process of becoming culturally enriched, as the indigenous population is replaced and in many places becomes a minority or even absent entirely. What support can be given to working-class families who are driven from the places their ancestors have lived for centuries? Should we just tell them that they are actually experiencing a richer way of life now that their neighbors don't speak the same language or accept that women have rights?

The Archbishop calls for a "re-imagining" of Britain in the wake of Brexit, which he calls divisive. He rails against the lack of progress in the construction of new homes - a problem exacerbated by nearly a quarter of million new migrants arriving every year, and high birth rates from polygamous Muslim families. Is there such a need for new construction to house the Britons, whose birth-rate is in slight decline? No- the need for new houses is driven by the newcomers and their children. Why do we need the newcomers? To prop up the ailing neoliberal system which demands endless growth.

The Archbishop talks about cuts to the NHS, austerity and the creaking education system. He places the blame for this woe at the feet of the wealthy, who should pay more to support the infrastructure. Blaming greed and economics, he said

"In economics we welcome growth and disciplined and properly behaving markets. Equally, human dignity demands that economics is made for people, not people for economics. Unfettered greed is not merely distasteful, it can wreck lives and whole economies, as we have seen.

Jesus spoke of God’s love for the poor, and of woes for the wealthy and complacent. We are a country that can meet our needs and be generous on top to the rest of the world."

Without overtly endorsing the lunacy of the Labour Party, this is an endorsement of socialist economics. Disciplined and properly behaving markets that demand wealth redistribution? Interesting indeed, that it emerges that Jesus was a communist with a firm understanding of Marxist economic theory. It is true that it is the nature of British people to be polite and helpful and this has, to some extent, been the downfall of our nation as we have become so meek that to complain about being replaced in our own lands appears unseemly. Archbishop Welby correctly notes that the NHS, welfare and the education system are struggling but appears to believe that through a wave of the Holy Writ loaves and fishes will rain across the land emancipating the poor, so long as we raise taxes.

Cutting the UK foreign-aid budget to punish #Oxfam would be a ‘tragedy’ and a retreat, warns Archbishop of Canterbury @JustinWelbyhttps://t.co/TT6o6NYfMR

— Church Times (@ChurchTimes) February 24, 2018

Strange then it is to inform the Archbishop that The Telegraph reported five years ago that each migrant to the United Kingdom -averaged across both EU and non-EU migrants- costs around £8000 each to the taxpayer.

"On average, each migrant consumes between £5,050 and £8,350 per year in state services, including benefits, healthcare, schooling and social services, the Home Office report found."

We know that migration from the continent of Europe proves to be a general net-gain for the country, so is it impolite to suggest that the ballpark figure of £8000 is in fact much higher for non-European migrants? Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that conflating Europeans in the UK with migrants from the Middle East and Africa serves only to obfuscate the issues at hand? Everything the Archbishop worries himself with -education, housing, healthcare- are parts of the British social infrastructure that are driven to breaking point by immigration. His solution is to tax the British people more to pay for the new arrivals- because we lack common British values, evidenced, in his mind, by the fact that a majority of Britons who could be bothered to vote want to leave the European Union. I did not know that British values include bending the knee to Guy Verhofstadt and Angela Merkel.

"Today in Britain we are suffering from a lack of such common values – values that have deep roots in our nation’s Christian history.

There will be great changes regardless of whether they are based on those Christian values or whether we just let things take their course.

But if it is the latter, then the consequences for the poor and needy will be dire, our pride in our country diminished and our contribution to the world stifled. We must use hope to heal for the future. We must be a warm, welcoming nation. We must never crush the new diversity and freedoms.

It is the duty of the Church and of all us to reimagine what it means to be this remarkable nation in the 21st Century."

What new freedoms would they be, Archbishop? The freedom to not be ourselves anymore? The freedom to hate ourselves for everything we are or were? The freedom to welcome our annihilation? That sounds like a suicide cult to me. If we truly are remarkable, is it not the case that there is something about British life that is worthy of protection and conservation for the generations that follow us? If we are led by this church into a reimagining of Britain, then that future is open-borders, socialist in economics and Islamic in faith. The British culture that was passed to us -this centuries old, imperfect but beautiful culture- will not survive this current century to be argued about by our descendants as we argue about it today.

Archbishop Welby knows that demographic changes are reshaping the nation, but he says nothing about the right of the British people to remain as they are and have been for centuries.

One of the truly great British values is the idea of leaving your fellow Briton alone to do as he wishes. It has been part of our social compact that in exchange for a few tokens, Britons live as they wish without molestation. That centuries-old idea, which predates Locke and Rousseau, rooted in the Magna Carta, is now tossed aside. Instead of his role in society being contingent on his skill and willingness to participate, the Briton is forced to pay more for services that do not function and to support migrant populations who exploit his infrastructure, hate his faith and laugh at his values.

In Britain, we are ruled by a monarch who is styled

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Where is the shield now? Where is our faith? The leader of the Anglican faith knows that demographic change is the fundamental issue facing not just the British but all Europeans, but he looks away. It is a sin that he prefers the easy answers posed by the globalist left, to make the people pay more because they will not complain too loudly. It is rank disdain for our people and our ways that he says they must change to fit with the newcomer, rather than they with us.

The Englishman has as much right to exist as any other race. It is not xenophobia to say that you do not want to overturn everything that is true about yourself. Justin Welby would do well to recognize that.

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech- but it doesn't come cheap! Will you make a small donation towards our running costs? You can make a difference by clicking here.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine http://ift.tt/2GKlomE via IFTTT

[relg3559]

Polygamy in US Media

        Over the past seven years TLC’s show, Sister Wives, has become a household name in the United States. In the most recent season finale in January 2017, over 3.4 million viewers tuned in, making it the most watched TLC show of all time. Despite their polygamous lifestyle, Kody and his four wives are portrayed as a ‘wholesome’ and ‘normal’ American family. As articulated by Bailey and Zahren in their article, “Post-homphobia Comes Out: The Rise of Mormon Polygamy in US Popular Culture,” Sister Wives does challenge convention by portraying Mormon polygamy, a practice outlawed in most states and villainized since its inception. The show allows “mainstream US media [to] juxtapose the Browns against the FLDS” which makes the Browns “legible as rightful post-homophobic citizens, especially in contrast to the darkened, queered and abjected FLDS” (Bailey and Zahren, 162) . The Browns become symbolic of the United States as a place of freedom and liberalism that allows citizens to reclaim their sexual and religious identities despite framing the family as a foil to a religious group that is not accepted, the Fundamentalist Church of the Latter Day Saints- FLDS. By accepting the Brown family, the United States works to portray itself as tolerant and open-minded to sexual difference despite “reinstalling the white, middle-class, Christian, heterosexual (if polygamous) nuclear family as ideal.” (Bailey and Zahren, 161) To build on Bailey and Zahren’s argument about the Browns as well as all Mormon polygamists as “rightful heirs to sexual/ religious minority politics” it is critical to examine another TLC show about polygamy, My Five Wives. The Browns are able to embody this “post-homophobic citizen” because they conform to certain norms around sex, such as framing each relationship between Kody and each of his wives in heteronormative terms and only speaking about sex as for the goal of procreation. The Williams are not accepted or inheritors of this title because they are open to sharing intimate details about their sexual lives, that do not involve procreation, and play on the idea that Brody Williams does in fact sleep with each of his five wives. My Five Wives suggests Mormon polygamists are still marginalized and unaccepted by the general public and that the Browns achieved acceptance because they conformed to mainstream American society rather than actually receiving the benefits of so-called ‘religious freedom.’  Unlike the success of Sister Wives, My Five Wives was cancelled after only two seasons and reported low viewership. On all accounts, the Williams family is very similar to the Browns: white, middle-class and polygamous, yet the Williams family were not able to mainstream their views in the way the Browns have. Why was the Williams family not embraced by audiences as the Browns have been? Despite checking the boxes for what should make them popular, and what Bailey and Zahren call “post-homophobic” citizens, they were not; thus suggesting that just appearing like the Browns is not enough to be embraced by the public. In actuality, US society does not tolerate religious as well as sexual differences and that to be accepted the Browns normalized their sexual lives to an American ideal whereas the Williams did not.

           Kody and his wives rarely speak about sex on the show and Kody almost never shows public affection. The only time sex is ever really discussed is in vague terms and in relation to having children. For example, Robyn and Cody speak on camera about their decision to have a child together and say, “when we were thinking of having a baby we looked at each other and go ‘now can we try.’”[1] For the Browns, sex is for procreation and through this they reinforce the idea of a heteronormative family despite being polygamists. Additionally, the Browns are sexually conservative as shown when third wife Christine’s expresses her anger about when she found out that Kody and new wife Robyn kissed after Kody proposed. As Christine says, she didn’t kiss Kody until “over the altar” because “she did not feel right about kissing a married man.[2]” Despite practicing Polygamy, the Brown’s position themselves as a ‘normal’ family by upholding conservative beliefs about the sanctity and importance of marriage, family, and children in a heteronormative fashion. In contrast, the opening scene in the promotional video of My Five Wives shows Brady William walking up in bed with his first wife, Pauline, and an intimate ‘good morning’ between the two of them as Pauline strokes Brady’s cheek. Then, the scene repeats itself, but this time with Robyn, the second wife. The exact same scene repeats itself three more times, with the next three wives. Right away, this family sets themselves apart from the Browns because of their openness to show and talk about the fact that polygamy means the man will have multiple sexual relationships within his marriage. In a video interview for the Huffington Post, when talking about the subject Brody explains, “when talking about the subject you feel like you can’t talk about it, but listen, all of America is having sex… we are just normal, normal times five[3].” Interestingly, Brody tries to positon himself as just a ‘normal American’ having ‘normal sex’ in his marriage. The Williams by all accounts should be the models for acceptance in a ‘Post-homophobic’ US due to their openness about their intimate relationships and open-minded views about sex, yet it is the very thing that made the show so contested by viewers.

           In the comments for the promotional video for My Five Wives Sister Wives, the issue of the William’s sexual lives was one of the major reactions for viewers, whereas it rarely appeared in the comments for Sister Wives. Under the TLC YouTube channels My Five Wives promotional video there are critiques of the family such as “This is really having your cake and eating it too LMAO. "Honey I'm not cheating on you, we're having a polygamous relationship!" and “This is glorifying cheating to me.”[4]. The promotional video for Sister Wives did also get negative comments, but rarely did they have to do with Kody’s intimidate relationships, rather there are comments like, “This is a cult” or “Polygamy is disgusting[5]”. The William’s show was not able to overcome such negativity from the public because they did not hide that their Polygamist marriage was not heteronormative. In an article for Bustle comparing and contrasting the two families, TLC’s New Polygamists on ‘My Five Wives’ are more ‘Progressive’ and Problematic Than The ‘Sister Wives’, author Samantha Rullo, breaks down the differences between the Browns and the Williams lifestyle. Many of the differences Rullo writes about come down to the portrayal of sex in each show. For example, when Rullo examines the differences in each families’ religion and social beliefs she takes issue with the Williams saying they left the Apostolic United Brethren sect of Fundamentalist Mormonism because they wanted to move from an “exclusive viewpoint to an inclusive one.” Rullo does recognize that they support marriage equality and do not want to force polygamy onto their children, but at the same time “Brady declared that there is to be no pre-marital sex. His reasoning for all of this? He doesn't want his kids to be "flippant with their bodies.[6]" Rullo asserts that although Brady openly says he is a feminist, his actions speak otherwise, such as in this case asserting authority over his children’s sexual lives. In her views, the Williams are so troublesome because they label themselves as socially progressive but their actions do not match a ‘typical’ progressive agenda. In some ways, Rullo’s article gets to the core of Bailey and Zahren’s argument. Mainstream American media, Rullo included, tolerates and even in some cases accept that the Browns practice polygamy because they portray themselves as a conservative heteronormative family. In contrast, the way in which the Williams practice and portray Polygamy is more sexualized and liberal and therefore outside of the acceptable norms of our Protestant Christian society. Furthermore, without the backing of the Apostolic United Brethren sect of Fundamentalist Mormonism the Williams become further isolated from societal norms because they no longer can use formalized religion as part of the reason to live as polygamists. Thus, the family moves away from what is considered acceptable in the United States. The two families show that Mormonism and more specifically polygamy is not in fact accepted in the United States and that the Browns are an exception due to how closely they follow societal standards around family structure and sexual differences. The portrayal of the Browns as “rightful post-homophobic citizens” is actually dangerous to society because it portrays a false sense of religious freedom and tolerance when in reality only allows for very specific difference. Similarly, Jasbir Paur, in her book Terrorist Assemblages, conveys the idea of Homonationalism in the United States, or the idea of “normative gayness” such that there is correct way to be gay. Sister Wives and My Five Wives conveys a sense of ‘Polygamy-nationalism’ where Sister Wives is the script for how to be a polygamist and the public reaction and subsequent cancelling of My Five Wives shows what happens when one goes off this script. Thus, there is actually no true acceptance for those who practice polygamy or who have different family structures than what is prescribed by society.  

[1]Sister Wives- Time to Start Trying. Perf. Kody Brown and Robyn Brown. You Tube/ Sister Wives. TLC, 11 June 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2017. <https://youtu.be/BNSAj45__AU>.

[2] Sister Wives - The Kiss. YouTube. YouTube/ TLC, 29 Sept. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfaLKrFbbl0>.

[3] HuffPostLive. "'My Five Wives' Star: 'All Of America Is Having Sex'." YouTube. YouTube, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ_wQSm6LTs>.

[4] TLC. "Meet The Wives | My Five Wives." YouTube. TLC, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbeycSVQT9s>.

[5] TLC. "Sister Wives - First Sneak Peek." YouTube. TLC, 07 Sept. 2010. Web. 1 Dec. 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvsVZdO6FJU>.

[6] Rullo, Samantha. "TLC's New Polygamists on 'My Five Wives' Are More "Progressive" And Problematic Than the 'Sister Wives'." Bustle. Bustle, 12 May 2014. Web. 1 Dec. 2017. <https://www.bustle.com/articles/20358-tlcs-new-polygamists-on-my-five-wives-are-more-progressive-and-problematic-than-the-sister-wives>.

[elizabethleslie7654]

Alt Right Jesus

check out this awesome jewelry I got hot with free shipping

Tweet

A preliminary reply to Matthew Schmitz’s ‘Christianity is for Cucks’

by Gaius Marcius

The trend of embracing pejorative nicknames is getting out of hand. First the Tea Party considered adopting the tea bagger moniker, then the Alt Right began to own the accusations of racism and White supremacy, and now highbrow Catholics are jumping on the bandwagon. The religious right has often disavowed the Alt Right and occasionally affirmed their own cuckservatism, but Matthew Schmitz goes far beyond merely appropriating an insult in his First Things essay. On the rather slender evidence of a few Evelyn Waugh quotations, Mr. Schmitz elevates being cuckolded, both on the racial-civilizational level and in private life, to the level of Christian virtue.

I will only briefly address the fantasy of African Christians replacing Europeans as the guardians of the Latin Mass, pastoral England, and Scholastic philosophy. The differing aptitudes of the races have been dealt with exhaustively by numerous race realist and human biodiversity writers. Mr. Schmitz sets the words and deeds of a few Black outliers like Cardinal Sarah, acting within a White institution within a White society, against the whole record of African and European history. Waugh likely intended the image of an ignorant White flock and a black priest to act as a rhetorical goad to rekindle some pride in Europe’s Christian heritage, just as Victor Hugo’s Notre–Dame de Paris revived the flagging reputation of a great cathedral in the minds of French readers. Waugh was counting on the implicit racism of his readers to recoil from the notion of ceding Christian culture to Africans, but he has the misfortune of being taken at face value by 21st century readers.

Mr. Schmitz hedges his bets a little when he admits that perhaps Blacks will not bear forth the culture abandoned by Whites. It may be a purely temperamental difference between us, but I would change “perhaps not” to, “almost certainly not.” Careful observers of Africa have noticed Christianity often loses out to Islam, as Alan Moorehead described in 1960:

“It was not only paganism [the missionaries] were attempting to displace, but the Moslem faith as well, and Islam was entrenched in Central Africa by this time. It had strong attractions for the primitive tribesmen, since it could be understood and practised by the simplest mind. There was no complicated initiation, no elaborate ritual, not even priest or a church were required… Already the Africans comprehended in a vague way the concept of God, and Islam merely demanded of them that they should acknowledge the authority of his prophet Mohammed. It was enough to declare ‘There is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet’, and the pagan illiterate was accepted into a faith that offered him all kinds of advantages…The status accorded to women by Islam also suited the Africans very well, since they were accustomed to polygamy; Mohammed allowed a man four wives who were all inferior to him, and divorce was easy. Best of all, perhaps, was Mohammed’s paradise, for it contained just those sensual delights that preoccupied the Africans here upon earth: a cool water-garden inhabited by beautiful women, the gratification of every physical want, and, by night, four houris to attend him in his square tent… As for the slavery itself (which the Africans had always practiced), it was condoned by Islam… Compared to these easy-going doctrines, Christianity presented a hard, uncompromising front. Its emphasis upon original sin and its dogma were difficult for a sluggish mind to master, and its prohibition of slavery and polygamy seemed to the tribesmen to be flying in the face of nature. The ethereal Christian heaven had very little appeal when contrasted with the sensuous Moslem paradise, and even the outward forms of Christianity were somewhat incongruous in this hot climate: the mosque had its graceful minarets, its great cool space beneath the rounded dome, its pleasant carpets to kneel on, and it harmonized with the landscape. But the severe lines of Christian architecture were alien to Africa.”

The White Nile , ch.16

Mr. Schmitz also glosses over the rather significant point that none of this displacement is necessary if Whites do not abandon Christianity. Many churches ill equipped to evangelize post-modern post-Christians turn in despair to the seemingly fruitful mission fields of Africa, mistaking great improvements in material culture and standard of living for successful conversion. These missions are the Christian equivalent of economic aid, and there is no more evidence that African churches could endure without constant subsidies, let alone sustain the culture that produced the Missa solemnis and novelists like Waugh, than that Africa could feed itself without foreign aid. Weighing the relative merits of Waugh’s fiction and Moorehead’s observations, I remain much more sanguine about the possibility of reconverting Europeans to Christianity, perhaps after a neo-Pagan interlude, than about the prospect of transferring Christianity to the global south.

Though I disagree with Mr. Schmitz’s conclusions, I do not mean to denigrate his use of novels to illustrate a philosophical point, because literature is one of the glories of Western Civilization closest to my own heart. Literature is both an intrinsically beautiful expression of the image of God in mankind, and an important tool for shaping culture. I notice that Mr. Schmitz draws his monumental conclusion that Christianity is for cucks from one story by one author from the last century; a century arguably already stepping into the post-Christian era when Waugh wrote. This hardly seems fair to the grand literary tradition of Christendom, so let us see if we can broaden the perspective a bit. I propose a trio of authors who span the genres of medieval poetry, Elizabethan drama, and 19th century novels. Few readers will be surprised to learn that these disparate writers are all in agreement about cuckoldry, and none of them agree with Mr. Schmitz.

In that most Catholic of epics, The Divine Comedy, Dante places traitors in the deepest circle of Hell. Traitors to kin, country, and guests (that’s invited guests only, not illegal immigrants) are frozen in an icy lake where their extremities drop off from frostbite and they cannot even weep without their eyes freezing shut (Canto XXXII). Traitors to masters, like Judas, Brutus, and Cassius, are perpetually chewed up by Satan at the very center of the earth. Even the scourge of medieval Christendom, Muhammad, sliced in two with his entrails dragging on the ground, is not placed so low as traitors (Canto XXVIII).

The Alt Right’s use of cuckold as an insult is a recognition that the entire false complex of outgroup altruism that is the summum bonum of modern morality is actually a betrayal of kin, country, guests, and masters all in one. The adulterous, lustful wife who brings in an alien child is not so guilty as the man who abdicates all his responsibilities by accepting it. Everyone who has a legitimate claim on a family is betrayed when an interloper is accepted by the very person who is responsible for defending the family and that extension of the family known as the nation. This might not seem very important to people raised in an era when family and nation are arguably valued less than at any other time in history, but mass familial disintegration is integral to the general decline of Western societies even if no one can see it. In monarchical times the stakes were more obvious because the stability of a single family could determine the fate of the entire nation.

Shakespeare illustrates the defensive attitude toward the sanctity of the family in his Winter’s Tale, where the action is initiated because Leontes, king of Sicilia, fears that he has been cuckolded by Polixenes, king of Bohemia.

“There have been, Or I am much deceived, cuckolds ere now; And many a man there is, even at this present, Now while I speak this, holds his wife by th’ arm, That little thinks she has been sluiced in ’s absence, And his pond fished by his next neighbor, by Sir Smile, his neighbor. Nay, there’s comfort in ’t Whiles other men have gates and those gates opened, As mine, against their will. Should all despair That have revolted wives, the tenth of mankind Would hang themselves.”

Winter’s Tale, 1.2.240

Leontes imprisons his wife and orders the daughter she bears in prison to be carried into the wild and left to die. Critically, though advisors challenge the king’s decision, they do so only by protesting that they believe him to be wrong about the facts of the case. Every character accepts the legitimacy of the king’s anger and the righteousness of his harsh judgments if the queen has in fact been unfaithful. The queen herself tells her followers that wrongful imprisonment is preferable to actually being an unfaithful wife:

“Do not weep, good fools; There is no cause. When you shall know your mistress Has deserved prison, then abound in tears As I come out. This action I now go on Is for my better grace.”

Winter’s Tale, 2.1.142

Dante and Shakespeare implicitly address the individual cuckold when they explore betrayal and royal responsibility, but Waugh writes at a much more personal and relatable level, so perhaps Anthony Trollope’s Doctor Thorne is the story best juxtaposed with Sword of Honor.  Doctor Thorne concerns the upbringing of a young bastard named Mary.  Mary’s mother, Miss Mary Scatcherd, was seduced by Henry Thorne, brother of the titular doctor. Miss Scatcherd’s brother finds out about her disgrace and kills Henry in a drunken rage, leaving Miss Scatcherd and her newborn destitute. Doctor Thorne seeks some means to help the unfortunate woman and his brother’s illegitimate child:

“At twilight, one evening, Thorne was surprised by a visit from a demure Barchester hardware dealer, whom he did not remember ever to have addressed before. This was the former lover of poor Mary Scatcherd. He had a proposal to make, and it was this:–if Mary would consent to leave the country at once, to leave it without notice from her brother, or talk or éclat on the matter, he would sell all that he had, marry her, and emigrate.”

So far we are traversing the same territory that Mr. Schmitz does with Waugh, but here the revolution in morals that separates the Christian civilization of the 1800’s from the mortally wounded Europe of 1933 begins to tell. Miss Scatcherd’s former lover is no cuckold pushover:

“There was but one condition; she must leave her baby behind her. The hardware-man could find it in his heart to be generous, to be generous and true to his love; but he could not be generous enough to father the seducer’s child.

‘I could never abide it, sir, if I took it,’ said he; ‘and she,–why of course she would always love it the best.’ “

Trollope next adds an editorial comment that shows that despite his formidable imagination even he could not foresee the reduced morals of the 20th century, let alone the utterly inverted moral universe of the 21st century:

“In praising his generosity, who can mingle any censure for such manifest prudence? He would still make her the wife of his bosom, defiled in the eyes of the world as she had been; but she must be to him the mother of his own children, not the mother of another’s child.”

Doctor Thorne raises his bastard niece himself, the hardware man lives happily with Miss Scatcherd as his wife, and both men exhibit Christian charity without condoning immorality or compromising their principles. Waugh’s Sword of Honor also extolls commendable selflessness and mercy, but the ambiguity of the story allows Mr. Schmitz to take the sin and tragedy that Christians must endure in the fallen world and makes positive virtues out of them. Protestant readers, particularly American evangelicals used to exegetical preaching, may be put off by all this reference to non-Biblical literature, so let us compare Mr. Schmitz’s contentions to The Book. Mr. Schmitz could have dispensed with Waugh altogether and gone straight to Hosea, the Old Testament prophet ordained as a cuckold by God Himself.

“When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her…The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress.”

Hosea 1.2 and 3.1

Hosea’s marriage is intended to be a picture of the relationship between God and the children of Israel, who repeatedly betray the Lord and seek after false gods. The ultimate message of the book is one of hope, because God forgives and accepts the people once they repent and abandon their sinful lifestyle. The awkward part, from the forgiving cuckold point of view, is the biblical prescription for the unrepentant wife, which falls decisively in the Dante-Shakespeare-Trollope tradition:

“Let her remove the adulterous look from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.  Otherwise I will strip her naked and make her as bare as on the day she was born; I will make her like a desert, turn her into a parched land, and slay her with thirst.  I will not show my love to her children, because they are the children of adultery.  Their mother has been unfaithful and has conceived them in disgrace…. Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes; I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.  She will chase after her lovers but not catch them; she will look for them but not find them.  Then she will say, ‘I will go back to my husband as at first, for then I was better off than now.’… So now I will expose her lewdness before the eyes of her lovers; no one will take her out of my hands. I will stop all her celebrations: her yearly festivals, her New Moons, her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.  I will ruin her vines and her fig trees which she said were her pay from her lovers; I will make them a thicket, and wild animals will devour them.”

Hosea 2:2-12

Do you detect the slight change in tone and emphasis when we move from God’s wrath toward an unfaithful wife to Matthew Schmitz’s description of Christian virtue?

“[Christianity] requires us to accept defeat in this life so we might enjoy triumph in the next. A Catholic cannot be certain that his line will continue or his country thrive. He only knows that the gates of hell will not prevail against Christ’s Church.”

There is an unwarranted leap from “cannot be certain” to ” requires us to accept defeat,” that revels in tribulation and is the inverse of the prosperity gospel. The biblical injunction of James is necessary because the world is fallen and sinful, but the world was not made sinful in order to promote faith:

“Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance. Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.”

James 1:2

Sin is used by God to bringing about faith and virtue, which is part of the mystery of redemption, but Saint Paul specifically writes against the error of considering the sins themselves to be inherently valuable:

“But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!”

Romans 5:20-6:2

Christianity offers eternal hope even to cuckolds, but the mission of the Church is not to promote cuckoldry as a pathway to virtue. The Church as a spiritual institution has a body of knowledge unobtainable by any means besides revelation, but as a social institution the Church has a choice in every age to either lead or follow the culture. Leading the culture means preaching the message that the world needs to hear but does not want to hear, while following the culture means preaching whatever message the world wants to hear but does not need. Exhortations to mercy would be appropriate for a bloody age like the 10th century; our permissive and emotive generation needs to be called to uncompromising rigidity in the face of sin and degeneracy. I am afraid that when Matthew Schmitz pressed the legitimate themes of Waugh’s story to absurd extremes, he was mainly concerned with joining the popular chorus of opposition to the Alt Right. The Christian acceptance of absurdity and the relegation of formerly uncontested truths to obscure reactionary and Alt Right circles is partly responsible for the declining social relevance of the religious right. By elevating the perennially unpopular and correctly despised moral failing of cuckoldry to the level of Christian virtue, Mr. Schmitz is, perhaps unwittingly, contributing to the very decline that he purports to oppose.

  Tweet

MY FAVORITE ACCESSORIES

from LIZ FASHION FEED http://ift.tt/2xLx8ER via IFTTT

[drubblernews-blog]

New Post has been published on http://drubbler.com/2017/02/22/one-is-enough/

'One is enough'

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();

Polygamy is widely accepted all over Nigeria but one of the country’s most prominent Muslim leaders is trying to ban the practice – in some cases.

Why are multiple spouses under scrutiny?

Men who cannot afford more than one wife are the catalyst for these reforms.

The Emir of Kano, Muhammad Sanusi, suggested that polygamy among the poor was linked to the rise of the Islamist militant group Boko Haram, which has been behind a violent insurgency in north-eastern Nigeria.

But it has managed to find recruits from all over the mainly Muslim north of the country.

“Those of us in the north have all seen the economic consequences of men who are not capable of maintaining one wife, marrying four,” the Emir said over the weekend.

“They end up producing 20 children, not educating them, leaving them on the streets, and they end up as thugs and terrorists.”

It was a brave statement that anyone who has visited the north will find hard to deny.

In many northern towns and cities groups of small children, known as “almajiris”, crowd around cars stuck in traffic, begging for small change.

How common is polygamy?

Marrying multiple wives is a lot less common among educated people in Nigeria but polygamy still happens in rural areas, especially in the Muslim north.

It is legal. Though the official marriage registry only allows for one wife, it also has a clause that allows for marriage under “customary” law. These rules will differ depending on the community.

One man from central Niger state, who died last month, famously had at least 86 wives and at least 170 children.

But according to Islamic law, a man should only have four wives.

Would a polygamy ban prevent terrorism?

The Emir was not clear on where he gleaned his research but a study published by the Royal Society scientific journal in 2012 said that polygamous societies were more prone to war, rape and theft.

The cause was not an abundance of uneducated children but a surplus of poor, young men with no prospects of marriage.

How can it be enforced?

The proposal has been submitted to a council of Islamic scholars for “validation” and then it will be presented to the Kano state legislature in two weeks’ time.

If passed it will be enforced through the Islamic family courts.

Kano is one of several northern states that have introduced Sharia after the end of military rule in 1999 – and the Islamic courts operate alongside secular courts.

In Kano most cases of family law are decided through Islamic courts.

But the problem is that many marriages in Nigeria are not registered with the government or the courts.

Would it be adopted elsewhere?

It would only apply in Kano state, but the Emir has a lot of influence and the law could be adopted in other Sharia states.

The bill is part of a series of reforms Muhammad Sanusi hopes to introduce as part of his mission to modernise the north, which has higher levels of poverty and illiteracy than the south.

So what are his other reforms?

The bill also deals with other marriage rights, education and inheritance.

It would see a ban on domestic violence – giving women the option to seek compensation for any bodily harm and the right to divorce if they can prove domestic abuse.

Domestic violence is already illegal in Nigeria but, as family lawyer Ik Nwabufo says, “human elements” get in the way of those laws being enforced.

From the police station to the courtroom it is a male-dominated system and many of these cases will be dropped along the way.

“What the Emir is trying to do is to close the loopholes,” says Mr Nwabufo.

“He is trying to make the Sharia courts stricter on these issues and to make these laws more relevant to religion and culture.”

The law would also prohibit forced marriage, meaning a woman would have to give her consent before a marriage is legal.

Though there are exceptions – if a woman’s father can prove with medical records that she is mentally disabled, he would have the right to decide her marriage for her.

But as educational attainment and literacy levels in the north are also woefully low – especially for girls – it is unlikely that many women will be aware of these rights even if they are enshrined in law.

Does the Emir practise polygamy?

The Emir does have four wives himself and has been quick to say there is nothing wrong with polygamy if the status of each wife is equal and the husband can afford to maintain all of his wives and children.

But he seems to be on a mission to modernise Kano where he came to the throne in 2014.

Before his royal career he was a well-known public figure – a banker, politician and businessman with a reputation as a reformer.

He was head of the Central Bank of Nigeria during the presidency of Goodluck Jonathan, when he blew the whistle on wide-scale corruption in the oil industry. He was fired from that job for speaking out.

Last week in a speech at the conferring of teachers in his state, he suggested that mosques in the north be converted into schools.

He publicly criticised the failure of education in the north and pointed to similar successful schemes in Morocco.

But challenging the practices that have reigned in the north for centuries will be an uphill battle.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push();