Child Abuse? - Are some supporting abuse?

[KosherXMorg]

Do not address any woman on this board as "Miss," or any other title that is not part of her screen name, again.

Edit: I was not clear that I am referring to the rude way you addressed "Miss" Rachelle. Your belittling tone is unacceptable. You will not speak down to her, or any other woman, on this site.

Elphaba

I will address you, her , or anyone however me da las ganas. What are you going to do come beat me with a wet noodle?

[KosherXMorg]

Fistulas are the result from way-too-young child brides having sex. This is just genetic, they develop later. They are just too tiny. Can you think of anything more morally abhorrent than that. I can't.

Neither you nor you feminist sister-in-arms, Elphaba, have yet shown that any of these problems you point to are existent within the FLDS community. If they were, surely TX would have leaked the information by know, since they had their good doctors feeling them up checking for "abuse".

[Moksha]

Professor Carl Djerassi, inventor of the birth control pill and described in this article as one of the world's most eminent scientists.

Children without sex is what the future holds, claims inventor of the Pill | Mail Online

Biologically, the ideal age to have a child would be 18-20, after which the woman could go to university and have a career.

Should have given the whole quote. I am uncertain if the Brethren would approve of the career part. I think they would suggest staying home and having more babies.

.

[Truegrits]

since they had their good doctors feeling them up checking for "abuse".

I may be overly sensitive and nit-picking, but I find the phrase feeling them up offensive. It connotes something inappropriate and unprofessional and is defamatory. You could have made your point without being vulgar...IMO

[KosherXMorg]

I may be overly sensitive and nit-picking, but I find the phrase feeling them up offensive. It connotes something inappropriate and unprofessional and defamatory. You could have made your point without being vulgar...IMO

They were acting inappropriate and unprofessional. Now many girls which never had before experienced outside contact with their vaginal area have been traumatized by having complete strangers, in a cold hospital environment, touching the body they have been taught to safeguard until marriage shortly after being torn from the arms of their parents and ripped from their homes. Inappropriate and unprofessional? YES!

[ruthiechan]

They were acting inappropriate and unprofessional. Now many girls which never had before experienced outside contact with their vaginal area have been traumatized by having complete strangers, in a cold hospital environment, touching the body they have been taught to safeguard until marriage shortly after being torn from the arms of their parents and ripped from their homes. Inappropriate and unprofessional? YES!

Excuse me?

No.

It is a totally different experience to be touched by a doctor than to be touched by someone who is in love with you and you're in love with him, and being touched by that person is totally different than being sexually molested by anyone, be it neighbor, family or stranger.

The three are not the same.

The first is very platonic.

The second is full of love and fun and deep intimacy.

The third is a violation and very traumatic.

Saying that the doctors are feeling these girls up implies devious sexual behavior on the part of the doctors. Would it make you feel better if all the doctors were straight females?

It also shows crass immaturity on your part.

[KosherXMorg]

Excuse me?

No.

It is a totally different experience to be touched by a doctor than to be touched by someone who is in love with you and you're in love with him, and being touched by that person is totally different than being sexually molested by anyone, be it neighbor, family or stranger.

The three are not the same.

The first is very platonic.

The second is full of love and fun and deep intimacy.

The third is a violation and very traumatic.

Saying that the doctors are feeling these girls up implies devious sexual behavior on the part of the doctors. Would it make you feel better if all the doctors were straight females?

It also shows crass immaturity on your part.

No, it would make me feel better if they didn't march them into a doctors office days after ripping them from their homes and families and force them to undergo physical exams without their consent. That's what would make me feel better but, oops, too late.

[Tough Grits]

More often than not, HOW we say something can make all the difference in whether or not the meaning will even be understood.

I was abused as a child. To this end, I still have problems (I am now 34 and have given birth to three children) with a male doctor examining me. I prefer women doctors, and even then the experience is never a relaxed or pleasant one.

Now, although I agree that (IMHO) it probably was traumatic for these kids to be ripped from their homes and examined by doctors...(that sure sounds scary to me), I feel there was probably a better way to get the point across than using such curt, or harsh terminology.

We all have different personalities and we all come from different backgrounds, and upbringings.

For example, I live in Georgia and I work in an elementary school. EVERYBODY is called Miss, ma'am, sir, or Mr. It is easier to say, and besides, most people here in the south call everybody else Miss, ma'am, sir, or Mr. regardless of age or marital status.

I call women older and younger than me Miss or ma'am. However, I am quite aware that up in the North it can be seen as rude or offensive to be called Miss or ma'am.

My grandfather is from New York, though having lived in the south most of his life. G-Pa and G-Ma never forced me to call them mam or sir, probably because of his upbringing. However, he does not get offended by being called sir...otherwise he would always be upset...cause he lives around southerners who believe in Sir/Ma'am/Miss/Mr.

If we want to be understood, then we have to look at how we approach things.

I posted in a thread recently, where somebody had a problem with just about everything I wrote. At first I was offended...because, after all, I knew what I meant. But then I had to realize that I had not explained myself well. I did not truly type what I had meant to say. I did not bother coming back on the user, because it just wasn't worth it to me. Although, I know a few of their own points were not correct either...at least not in regards to what I actually meant and what I was actually trying to say.

*sigh*

Pride is an interesting thing, huh?

When we get our individual report on our earthly behavior, well it say that we did not play nice with others?

Okay, I am bogged down with algebra homework right now, so please don't throw any stones at me!!!!!

LOL LOL

[WANDERER]

Kosher

I disagree with underage marriages. Fullstop. I teach. I work with four to thirteen year olds. I have 18 years experience within all age groups. I react in the way that I do, because child abuse is wrong and heartbreaking.

However, I agree with you that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and due process. This right extends to the FLDS.

I understand that I misconstrued your intentions with the word Miss.

[WillowTheWhisp]

It is a totally different experience to be touched by a doctor than to be touched by someone who is in love with you and you're in love with him, and being touched by that person is totally different than being sexually molested by anyone, be it neighbor, family or stranger.

The three are not the same.

The first is very platonic.

The second is full of love and fun and deep intimacy.

The third is a violation and very traumatic.

Yes the three are VERY different, but to a child brought up in a society which regards the body as sacred and not to be touched in private places by anyone other than a spouse after marriage. the clinical examination by a doctor after the child has been removed from home and parents and would already be under a great deal of stress due to that, is a lot closer to a traumatic violation than it would be to someone who may have experienced previous clinical examinations by strangers and have been accompanied in the doctor's surgery by their loving mother. To have total strangers examining and touching their intimate areas would be totally unthinkable for these children. They probably do feel violated.

I have a friend who was raped as a child. She was taken to the police station by her mother and subject to medical examinations which in her memory are just as traumatic to her as the rape itself. How can you say the children will not be affected by these examinations when nothing was ever done to them before? It will not seem platonic to them. My friend being examined did not feel it was a platonic experience even though as an adult she knows it was necessary. It doesn't make it any easier to have gone through the experience of total strangers doing that.

[Fiannan]

Fiannan keeps insisting that because the culture condones the practice, it is okay.

Okay, Elphaba, do a bit of reserach on these boards and you will find I have created at least one thread condemning female genital mutilation.

I have not said that just because a society condones something then it is okay. I have said that if GOD condones something then it is at least moral. You can disagree with something in the scriptures but I find it difficult to say that it is a good idea for a believer to put themselv's as morally superior to God.

Removal of a woman's genetals is disfigurment of the body and is absolutely nothing that the God of the Bible would support. Polygamy IS something that is supported. As for marriage ages, one can say this or that about what is advisable to have in the society but to call marriage involving a 14 year old immoral is saying God promoted or condoned immorality.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, is the information you posted in the .pdf you linked or from some place else?

Hi Ruthie,

Here is the link: http://www.rightsathome.org/docs/marriage/Innocenti.pdf

Elphie

[Elphaba]

I have not said that just because a society condones something then it is okay. I have said that if GOD condones something then it is at least moral. You can disagree with something in the scriptures but I find it difficult to say that it is a good idea for a believer to put themselv's as morally superior to God.

So you're playing the atheist card, huh? Nothing I say is worthwhile because you see me acting as if I am morally superior to God.

You know what? When it comes to little girls who need to be loved, nurtured, and protected from forced intercourse with men they don't want then yes, I am morally superior.

And don't bring the FLDS into MY argument, because I never referred to them. I've always been talking about Muslims.

Back to the subject: Muslims who practice FGM believe the Prophet condoned it

Below are two hadeeths concerning FGM:

"Circumcision is a commedable act for men (Sunnah) and is an honorable thing for women (Makromah)." [5]

There are two observations on this Hadeeth:

a) A distinction is made between male circumcision which is described in a stronger religious term (Sunnah) [6] or commendable while another weaker description is given to female circumcision (Makromah) which implies no religious obligation.

b) This Hadeeth is of weak authenticity (dha'eef) according to Hadeeth scholars. [7]

There is, however, a more authentic Hadeeth in which Prophet Muhammad (P) is reported to have passed by a woman performing circumcision on a young girl. He instructed the woman by saying:

"Cut off only the foreskin (outer fold of skin over the clitoris; the prepuce) but do not cut off deeply (i.e. the clitoris itself), for this is brighter for the face (of the girl) and more favorable with the husband." [8]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am not saying these hadeeth’s insist on FMG, but they obviously condone it, which has been my argument all along. It would really be nice if you actually acknowledged that.

So, to these Muslims, Mohammed did condone it. Thus, thousands of different Muslim cultures use these hadeeths to subject their little girls to FGM.

So, yes, it is still mountains and mountains.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

I understand that I misconstrued your intentions with the word Miss.

Hi Wanderer,

Since I am the one who brought up Ksoher's use of "Miss," I really am the one who should apologize to you. You did nothing wrong.

Elphaba

[Tough Grits]

Polygamy IS something that is supported. As for marriage ages, one can say this or that about what is advisable to have in the society but to call marriage involving a 14 year old immoral is saying God promoted or condoned immorality.

I can't remember now if I have read all the posts on this thread or not, as my brain is fried right now!

Fiannan, I think I have a grasp on what you are saying. If not, then please forgive and excuse me!!! LOL LOL

We are to follow the laws of the land...but not all lands have the same laws. So, just because there are certain laws pertaining to marriage and sexual intercourse in this country, does not mean that it can be fairly applied to other countries.

I know this may not seem like a fair comparison, but those of us in the Church are counseled to dress modestly. So, does that mean the tribes in the rain forest are committing sin by running around in loin cloths?

I know, like I said, that may not seem like a fair comparison to the discussion. But it is a valid point, I think.

Have we become so used to our own laws, customs, and manner of thinking that we cannot grasp that others are not the same?

There are African tribes where the women place rings on their necks...elongating their necks to the point...that if they were to ever remove the rings, their necks would snap and not be able to support the weight of their heads.

To me this is very bizarre. Why would somebody do this? But just because I would not do something, and just because I do not understand something, does not mean it is a crime.

There are people in this world who feel that male circumcision is VERY barbaric, cruel, and just plain wrong.

My husband and my sons have had this procedure. They do not feel violated. It happened when they were infants.

Why do some girls in America pierce their ears? Isn't that just as weird and barbaric as the women who wear rings on their necks?

There was a time, not so long ago in our American history, where there was NOT a law or set age for marriage.

Many cultures, even some tribes of the Native American Indians allowed for a girl to be married off when they reached womanhood (onset of menstrual cycle).

I am not justifying. I am not siding with anybody. I can just see where I cannot measure all people by the stick that I am to be measured by, because there are those who do not live where I live, know what I know, and believe what I believe.

I know that Heavenly Father will take care of those who molest, rape, torture, murder, pillage, violate, abuse, beat, betray, and harm His children.

I also believe that we should do all we can to uphold our own standards, and be the example for others to follow. There is nothing wrong with allowing others to hear our words, and learn from us...but we must do so with tolerance and love. Otherwise, we become no better than certain Christians who invaded "heathen" nations to force the "heathens" to believe in Christianity. I am sure at the time these people thought they were "saving" the "heathens".

Again, please do not attack me for seemingly making unreasonable comparisons to what some feel are atrocities.

I have lived in America all my life. I was not raised by a "heathen" culture. Yet I was molested during my childhood. It was not an isolated incident. So, there are wolves in sheep clothing in all corners of the world...even in our own backyard.

I believe that we should fight for those that cannot fight for themselves...but I also think we should make sure that they actually want our help to begin with.

Just my thoughts.

[begood2]

I can't remember now if I have read all the posts on this thread or not, as my brain is fried right now!

Fiannan, I think I have a grasp on what you are saying. If not, then please forgive and excuse me!!! LOL LOL

We are to follow the laws of the land...but not all lands have the same laws. So, just because there are certain laws pertaining to marriage and sexual intercourse in this country, does not mean that it can be fairly applied to other countries.

I know this may not seem like a fair comparison, but those of us in the Church are counseled to dress modestly. So, does that mean the tribes in the rain forest are committing sin by running around in loin cloths?

I know, like I said, that may not seem like a fair comparison to the discussion. But it is a valid point, I think.

Have we become so used to our own laws, customs, and manner of thinking that we cannot grasp that others are not the same?

There are African tribes where the women place rings on their necks...elongating their necks to the point...that if they were to ever remove the rings, their necks would snap and not be able to support the weight of their heads.

To me this is very bizarre. Why would somebody do this? But just because I would not do something, and just because I do not understand something, does not mean it is a crime.

There are people in this world who feel that male circumcision is VERY barbaric, cruel, and just plain wrong.

My husband and my sons have had this procedure. They do not feel violated. It happened when they were infants.

Why do some girls in America pierce their ears? Isn't that just as weird and barbaric as the women who wear rings on their necks?

There was a time, not so long ago in our American history, where there was NOT a law or set age for marriage.

Many cultures, even some tribes of the Native American Indians allowed for a girl to be married off when they reached womanhood (onset of menstrual cycle).

I am not justifying. I am not siding with anybody. I can just see where I cannot measure all people by the stick that I am to be measured by, because there are those who do not live where I live, know what I know, and believe what I believe.

I know that Heavenly Father will take care of those who molest, rape, torture, murder, pillage, violate, abuse, beat, betray, and harm His children.

I also believe that we should do all we can to uphold our own standards, and be the example for others to follow. There is nothing wrong with allowing others to hear our words, and learn from us...but we must do so with tolerance and love. Otherwise, we become no better than certain Christians who invaded "heathen" nations to force the "heathens" to believe in Christianity. I am sure at the time these people thought they were "saving" the "heathens".

Again, please do not attack me for seemingly making unreasonable comparisons to what some feel are atrocities.

I have lived in America all my life. I was not raised by a "heathen" culture. Yet I was molested during my childhood. It was not an isolated incident. So, there are wolves in sheep clothing in all corners of the world...even in our own backyard.

I believe that we should fight for those that cannot fight for themselves...but I also think we should make sure that they actually want our help to begin with.

Just my thoughts.

Few people in the Western world would allow female circumcision, but think that it is normal and necessary for male circumcision. But this procedure is not the no-brainer that most think!

There are a variety of reasons given as to why this procedure is performed: personal hygiene, religious grounds, cosmetic, so he will fit in with other boys, reduce infections and diseases, but in the vast majority of cases there is no medical reason for it!

Recent studies have shown that the removal of the foreskin which contains thousands of nerve endings might be a contributing factor in Ed later in life. Shouldn't the male child be allowed to give his informed consent? Especially since there are a number of botched surgeries each year that can result in complete amputation and even death?

Below is a link to a long article on the subject if you would like to read it:

Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront

[begood2]

I can't remember now if I have read all the posts on this thread or not, as my brain is fried right now!

Fiannan, I think I have a grasp on what you are saying. If not, then please forgive and excuse me!!! LOL LOL

We are to follow the laws of the land...but not all lands have the same laws. So, just because there are certain laws pertaining to marriage and sexual intercourse in this country, does not mean that it can be fairly applied to other countries.

I know this may not seem like a fair comparison, but those of us in the Church are counseled to dress modestly. So, does that mean the tribes in the rain forest are committing sin by running around in loin cloths?

I know, like I said, that may not seem like a fair comparison to the discussion. But it is a valid point, I think.

Have we become so used to our own laws, customs, and manner of thinking that we cannot grasp that others are not the same?

There are African tribes where the women place rings on their necks...elongating their necks to the point...that if they were to ever remove the rings, their necks would snap and not be able to support the weight of their heads.

To me this is very bizarre. Why would somebody do this? But just because I would not do something, and just because I do not understand something, does not mean it is a crime.

There are people in this world who feel that male circumcision is VERY barbaric, cruel, and just plain wrong.

My husband and my sons have had this procedure. They do not feel violated. It happened when they were infants.

Why do some girls in America pierce their ears? Isn't that just as weird and barbaric as the women who wear rings on their necks?

There was a time, not so long ago in our American history, where there was NOT a law or set age for marriage.

Many cultures, even some tribes of the Native American Indians allowed for a girl to be married off when they reached womanhood (onset of menstrual cycle).

I am not justifying. I am not siding with anybody. I can just see where I cannot measure all people by the stick that I am to be measured by, because there are those who do not live where I live, know what I know, and believe what I believe.

I know that Heavenly Father will take care of those who molest, rape, torture, murder, pillage, violate, abuse, beat, betray, and harm His children.

I also believe that we should do all we can to uphold our own standards, and be the example for others to follow. There is nothing wrong with allowing others to hear our words, and learn from us...but we must do so with tolerance and love. Otherwise, we become no better than certain Christians who invaded "heathen" nations to force the "heathens" to believe in Christianity. I am sure at the time these people thought they were "saving" the "heathens".

Again, please do not attack me for seemingly making unreasonable comparisons to what some feel are atrocities.

I have lived in America all my life. I was not raised by a "heathen" culture. Yet I was molested during my childhood. It was not an isolated incident. So, there are wolves in sheep clothing in all corners of the world...even in our own backyard.

I believe that we should fight for those that cannot fight for themselves...but I also think we should make sure that they actually want our help to begin with.

Just my thoughts.

Few people in the Western world would allow female circumcision, but think that it is normal and necessary for male circumcision. But this procedure is not the no-brainer that most think!

There are a variety of reasons given as to why this procedure is performed: personal hygiene, religious grounds, cosmetic, so he will fit in with other boys, reduce infections and diseases, but in the vast majority of cases there is no medical reason for it!

Recent studies have shown that the removal of the foreskin which contains thousands of nerve endings might be a contributing factor in Ed later in life. Shouldn't the male child be allowed to give his informed consent? Especially since there are a number of botched surgeries each year that can result in complete amputation and even death?

Below is a link to a long article on the subject if you would like to read it:

Male Circumcision: A Legal Affront

[WANDERER]

I have said that if GOD condones something then it is at least moral. You can disagree with something in the scriptures but I find it difficult to say that it is a good idea for a believer to put themselves as morally superior to God.

I don't think that's quite what people believe. Jesus lived a very different lifestyle to what most Christians live today...is it required for us to follow Jewish customs as he did? Do girls have to get married at 14 after Mary's example?

That was then and this is now. We respect the values: honouring your parents, obedience to God and so on. But we are not literally living the way our Saviour did. We could carry it quite far: only eating the same foods of the historical era, using the same language etc. The difference is between what we perceive as customs and important beliefs and the approach that we have to sacred texts perhaps. Mary at 14 is not a religious moral issue...it's not even an issue as historically it was part of our cultural practices. Do we consider it immoral historically. No, just a different time and age. We are blessed with medical advancements and long lives and health. Our children are blessed with longer childhoods. We value their safety and protect them in the best ways that we know how. It is interesting the number of sites that point out Mary's age...as if it were some immorality on our behalf that we did not do exactly as our scriptures dictated. Our scriptures also mention not wearing your hair in plaits many times. Yet to consider someone damned for doing so isn't my belief...or perhaps yours either. KJV also mentions dragons...but does that mean there were real dragons? These may present as seeming inconsistencies to those of other faiths.

What do I think about cultural practices and underage marriage...is it about tolerance...nope...young girls and their families are the one's who tolerate it. There's a lot we can do to make their lives safer medically and so on, if we can, and where it should be done and with care.

Is it intolerant of me not to practice the same customs or have the same beliefs or even the same way of following scriptures. No.

Is it intolerant of me to accept the child protection laws and defend them. That is my agency. And if people are practicing certain things against the cultural and legal laws of a nation that is also about their agency. If I believe that my beliefs are worth going against the laws and culture then doing so has repercussions that I will have to face, as with any group that finds their beliefs and practices put them in this position. I'm speaking in generalised terms and not against any particular group of people.

And yes, culturally, I do believe that people protect the children and care for them, and may not have the same beliefs that I do. There are some fundamental shared values: health and valuing young lives and I believe that the work done there is important in terms of medical aid and social aid to those that become outcasts and need assistance..while honouring the laws and rules and beliefs of the people involved.

That goes both ways. It does not mean we have to change our laws and beliefs in order to be considered tolerant or more devout or vice versa. However, in this day and age it does seem that we give more and more concessions about morality in order to be more 'politically correct' and 'religiously correct.' But to whose standards?

[Fiannan]

Jesus lived a very different lifestyle to what most Christians live today

Yeah, isn't that the truth!

[Tough Grits]

It does not mean we have to change our laws and beliefs in order to be considered tolerant or more devout or vice versa. However, in this day and age it does seem that we give more and more concessions about morality in order to be more 'politically correct' and 'religiously correct.' But to whose standards?

I agree.

Political correctness is a joke. Why would I want to be correct by political standards...when politics is rife with deceit, cheating, and immorality? Of course, that is just my jaded opinion. Please don't ask me to site any sources or anything!! LOL LOL

I think our current laws on marital age are fair and fit what we believe as a whole, for the most part.

I believe FIRMLY in obeying the laws of the land. I would not move to a land in which I would not or could not follow the set laws. Nor would I expect that land to change all their laws just for me.

But as you said, that road goes both ways. Neither would I travel to Africa and try to change all their laws and customs just to suit me or my own personal beliefs.

I think Americans are having a hard enough time keeping this country together. I think the United States is on a slippery slope, and while other nations, people, and cultures are in my thoughts and prayers...right now this country has my first priority. If Americans don't wake up and start realizing that all that we hold dear is slipping through our fingers like sand, then we will wake up one morning and not recognize the land about us.

Tolerance, to me, means that I accept that there are people who do not believe as I do. Tolerance, to me, means that I do not cast any stones, as I am not perfect either. Tolerance, to me, means that I allow others to use or abuse their agency, just as I am allowed to use or abuse my own agency.

However, tolerance does NOT mean, to me, that I would allow somebody to harm me or mine! As long as it is in within my control and power (and sometimes it isn't) then I am going to do all that I can to ensure that my children are safe, that all who live in my home obey the laws of the land, and that all who live in my home obey the laws of God.

I believe in doing all that I can to NOT allow this country to slip any further down the slippery slope that it is already on...but there may not be anything I can do about that.

All of us know that things are going to get much worse before the Savior returns. This is reality. These are the last days.

While I will still do my part to ensure that America does not slide any faster down the slippery slope, I also realize that the time may be at hand where I need to look to my home first and do all I can here. It may already be too late to save our own country...but it is NEVER too late to protect my home and all those who dwell within it.

Just my thoughts.

[Fiannan]

WANDERER, there are things that are cultural in the scriptures and things that God made reference to that indicate His support.

Let us take the issue of appropriate clothing for example. This is pretty much a cultural construct and not something God commented on in the scriptures. The only thing God condemned was wearing jewelry or clothes that confir the image that you are better than someone else or that your class is superior. Other than that not much. So here society and culture is the main determinant of what is and is not appropriate.

In the Bible it indicates that the apostles fished in the nude which is understandable since clothing was not so easy to replace and when doing labor you did not want to ruin the clothing you had. So when David had a wife condemn him for showing himself in public naked she did not call him immodest but chastized him for acting like a commoner which might support the idea that in those days if it was hot you dressed accordingly in the fields or whatever. Also, there is some evidence that baptisms were done in the nude when Christianity first started.

Now in those societies they may have had a different idea of modesty than most people today have. And in regards to things like body piercing, married women wore their ring in their nose, not on the finger. That is just the way it was done.

Now in reference to the Victorian age, the 1800s, if a woman in Relief Society were warped back in time from 2008 to 1860 the clothing she considers modest even Churchy would get her arrested. Maybe a hundred years LDS women will be urged to wear hajibs if Islam grows as it is now and the dominant society sees an uncovered head as immodest. Then again, if things went the other direction perhaps a woman going bike riking topless on a hot day would be seen as okay as long as she was exercising. Maybe what would be considered innapropriate would be to wear expensive jewely when skinnydipping at the public pool. None of these extremes is something you could say God supports or condemns. So that is something that society kinda dictates the standards, including what is modest.

So going by the John Locke idea of the social contract if you want to go nude all the time today you have to join a nudist resort, you cannot get all your friends together and go play soccer naked at a public sports field or you will get in trouble.

Now as for issues such as marriage age or polygamy or same gender relations these are things God has made commentary on in the scriptures. So we can say this or that about what is advantageous to the individual or society but morality cannot be used to attack things God supported or else we place our standards above those of God.

[KosherXMorg]

Yeah, isn't that the truth!

Amen!

[WANDERER]

Finian, can I clarify,

The concept is morality and what God has made reference to that indicates His support. And that morality cannot be used to attack the things that God has referenced support to.

You support it by not attacking it on moral grounds as you find this indicative of placing our standards above God.

Other people reference this support differently. Some people literally do not wear plaits in their hair. I came from a fundamentalist church where wearing your hair in plaits was not considered okay. Some people have used the Bible to justify racism. God's support has been interpreted diversely throughout time. You interpret the stance on clothing as led by spiritual understanding of what morality is and also in regards to polygamy and under-age marriage.

According to your understanding of scriptural times you explain that God supports 14 year old marriages and that they cannot be considered immoral: or violating accepted principles of what is right and wrong as determined by God. I'm interested in your explanation of your spiritual understanding of this. Are we all immoral according to your understanding for not supporting the things that you reference God as supporting? And do we place our standards above Gods when we do not practice this?

Adding: Kosher I would also like to hear your thoughts on this.

[KosherXMorg]

Finian, can I clarify,

The concept is morality and what God has made reference to that indicates His support. And that morality cannot be used to attack the things that God has referenced support to.

You support it by not attacking it on moral grounds as you find this indicative of placing our standards above God.

Other people reference this support differently. Some people literally do not wear plaits in their hair. I came from a fundamentalist church where wearing your hair in plaits was not considered okay. Some people have used the Bible to justify racism. God's support has been interpreted diversely throughout time. You interpret the stance on clothing as led by spiritual understanding of what morality is and also in regards to polygamy and under-age marriage.

According to your understanding of scriptural times you explain that God supports 14 year old marriages and that they cannot be considered immoral: or violating accepted principles of what is right and wrong as determined by God. I'm interested in your explanation of your spiritual understanding of this. Are we all immoral according to your understanding for not supporting the things that you reference God as supporting? And do we place our standards above Gods when we do not practice this?

Adding: Kosher I would also like to hear your thoughts on this.

"Are we all immoral according to your understanding for not supporting the things that you reference God as supporting? And do we place our standards above Gods when we do not practice this?"

Absolutely not! You're immoral when you infringe on the free agency of others who have chosen to marry in such a way as YHWH has permitted and at times commanded or thinking YHWH is somehow wrong in permitting such marriages practices. If you want to have a monogamous marriage, more power to you, be the best monogamist you can.

[Fiannan]

According to your understanding of scriptural times you explain that God supports 14 year old marriages and that they cannot be considered immoral: or violating accepted principles of what is right and wrong as determined by God. I'm interested in your explanation of your spiritual understanding of this. Are we all immoral according to your understanding for not supporting the things that you reference God as supporting? And do we place our standards above Gods when we do not practice this?

I'll add to Kosher as well.

What I am saying is that we can have laws in our society but we cannot call them backed by morality unless they are backed by God. Or we can have laws that are totally set by whatever legislators come up with, and they can even be supported by 99% of the public, but if someone breaks one of these laws they are not in any way immoral.

I used the clothing example to illustrate that God never instructed us as to what kinds of clothing we were to wear so issues of modesty are purely subject to what people are willing to tolerate in the society. In some Pacific Island cultures a woman was not allowed to wear clothing on her top half unless she was married -- to do so was disrespectful. Does that violate God's laws? No. Would it raise the ire of CPS if some of these people still believed in these traditions, moved to the US, and sent their teenage daughter to school topless? You bet. The parents would get in trouble becasue they violate a societal norm and laws based on those norms but to say the parents were immoral would be wrong.

Is wreckless driving immoral -- it's not mentioned in the Bible. However, here we can combine a law as well as infer that The Golden Rule as well as what is implied in "Thou shalt not kill" would make driving too fast, etc. both illegal and immoral.

Would CPS be called if you sent your children to school with a lunchbox containing a burger made of dog meat, some stir fry with meat consisting of grasshoppers and honey? Probably. Yet I don't believe the Bible condemns eating dog meat (purely an illogical societal thing) and locusts are considered clean food by God (I joked with my kids when we watched the old movie "Brigham Young" that it was just typical for Mormons to miss that maybe God sent them locusts for food in tough times). There might be some who would say that sending junior to school munching grasshoppers is bad parenting but it is supported by God, and is incredibly nutritious.

So even the term "under-age marriage" is a societal construct and has no real basis in the Bible or the Book of Mormon (or, as history shows us, with many of the leaders of our religion). What is underage? Isn't the legal marriage age in China quite high to discourage child bearing?

Chinese citizens living in U.S. or foreigners wishing to go to China to marry a Chinese Citizen, should know that the legal marriage age in China is 22 or above for males, and 20 or above for females.

China Adviser-Marriage in China

So a 21 year old male is under age in China. IN Iran a girl can marry at nine and a guy at 14. So if our 21 year old guy from China is a Muslim (lots of them in China, believe me) and moves to Iran and marries a 14 year old female just which of them is underage anyway? Which is immoral?