Below is a commentary by Robin Marty (website) and the response I had to it which I wrote for an email listserv I'm on. While the article is wholly political in nature, my response is much more about religions (including Mormonism) and should (but probably won't) raise red flags about the control of churches over peoples' lives.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/the-real-problem-with-the-mama-grizzlies/

In my study of all things Mormon from the ex-Mormon viewpoint, one of the things that really jumps out at me is the LDS church's role in the family cycle. Like everything else it touches, the male "priesthood" leaders of that church feel it is their duty to control what the family relationships are supposed to be, and the philosophy they espouse is very similar to the "mama grizzlies" one described in the commentary.

One of the things that ex-Mormons have said when discussing this subject is that the LDS church tries to get its members to marry young (21 years for guys and 18 years for girls) in order for them to begin starting a family right away. The
church's elders have stated plainly on a number of occasions that limitations on money and living quarters should not interfere with having as many children as possible in the shortest time possible.

Many ex-Mormons believe that their former church does this for two reasons: 1) to encourage more kids to be raised in the church; and 2) (probably more importantly in terms of this commentary), to force the couple to become dependent on the church for the survival of both themselves and their children. I suspect the latter point is true for a lot of right-wing Christian churches as well. Allowing women to have state alternatives, say from an abusive husband who is an
otherwise outstanding church member, is not an option these churches want--it could break down the authority these churches claim over their members.

I suspect that if right-wing ministers had their way, they would leave both sexes totally in the dark about sexual relations, particularly females. I very well remember listening to a very Christian female disabled paratransit driver (I was the only passenger with her on the bus at the time) seeking advice from me with regard to sex. It seems the minister of her church had gathered all of the church's male members together without any females present and told them that there was a "natural way" for them to do birth control without getting their wives pregnant. This involved abstaining from sex except once a month, and they had to convince their wives to stop all other forms of birth control. The driver said that all of the women in the church who agreed to their husbands' desires on this found themselves pregnant within the next three months, and she wondered how good the method really was. I explained the so-called rhythm method wasn't very good and why before we
reached my destination. The point I'm getting at is that these ministers, like their Mormon church counterparts,
actually have a vested interest in encouraging couples to have more children even if the couples don't want any more, and they would therefore prefer to keep both sexes, especially women, in the dark about birth control and make the couples dependent on them and their churches for their survival. And this is really the kind of behavior that Sarah Palin is advocating.

"blindguy"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/08/2010 08:53AM by blindguy.