To be a decent person. To be happy. Those are the two main things most people say when asked what they want for their child.
We then proceed to raise our children in such a way that constantly challenges the possibility of those two elements, at every juncture of our society. For better or worse, we raise our children to measure decency and happiness by standards of a world of consumerism run amok and competition built into every aspect of living. Double standards, duplicity, and deceit are so much a part of our daily lives we have lost all awareness of there existence and the insidious nature of how they erode the soul.
What most people really want for their children is for them to be successful in their own world. If they can eke out some happiness, and also manage to be reasonably decent in the doing, those are bonuses, but not requisites. So we raise our children with the tools and expectations of success. And those tools become paramount. Whether we mask them with other names or not is irrelevant. They are the tools for success in the world the parent identifies with. Everything from how we dress to how we look at sexuality to what classes we take and what sports we enjoy. We shape and mold our children in the image we want, or wanted, for ourselves.
Although physically located dead in the middle of America, the FLDS have maintained a culture that has not evolved in the same way as the rest of us. When they state a desire to raise their children as decent people, with the hope that they are happy it is a literal statement. It is unencumbered by the accoutrements of gearing for success in today’s larger world. That is an entirely foreign concept for most of us. We hear and interpret their words with our filters. We interpret what we hear with our subliminal understanding of what something means, and our own standards firmly in place in our thinking. Because the words are the same, we cannot seem to set aside our meaning for those words.
To the FLDS parent, there is a fundamental and unquestionable belief that with decency and happiness comes success. Not the other way around. If you are decent you will be happy. If you are happy, you will be successful. And all three words are defined very differently for everyday life than we commonly define them;
Decent = learning, understanding, believing, and following God’s word. Living in righteousness. Being kind, fair, loving, generous, non-judgmental, and all of the things knowing God’s word commands.
Happiness = The knowledge that you dedicate every day to achieving being a decent person. It allows you, no matter how difficult the work has been, to feel good. To feel your spirit fill with happiness.
Success = Walking in righteousness, that has come from working hard, everyday to live decently. And understanding that it is lifelong work to remain successful.
To begin to understand the FLDS culture, you have to shed away all your built in beliefs of what those three words mean and see them as defined this way. And see them as the primary guidance that each and every member of the FLDS community lives and measures their life by. Not by possessions, money, social standing, career choice, or anything else. And it is by these definitions their children are raised.
I want to share this beautiful, short video with everyone, if the link posts properly...
Amazing grace in Rome
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271552717?bctid=1913313052
7 years ago
22 comments:
Do you define decency by destroying another persons fields?
I'd be inclined to say you have already formed an opinion and are just spoiling for a fight.Perhaps, if you want to have a discussion, you'll rephrase your statement....
Even if a trial had already occurred and two people had been tried and convicted, do we define a group of thousands by the actions of two?
Do we even define two people by a single action that may have been borne out of great frustration and aggravation and stress?
And do we define decency by the state's laws?
And do we draw conclusions about human beings based on media reports that are inherently incomplete?
Regina,
While I do not agree with the anonymous poster that defines the entire group by two, I can see what he is talking about.
The person in rightful control of that field just lost his entire wheat crop. He depends on that to feed his family and pay his bills.
The FLDS knew that he had planted the field, they had asked him for a copy of the lease, which he refused to provide (and which was well within his rights). The wheat was starting to sprout, and Richard Jessop had not used that field in years. There is no way that Jessop did not know that the wheat was beginning to sprout - the only explanation is that he intentionally destroyed the crop.
If I am going to sympathize with anyone at this point, it isn't going to be someone that has destroyed crops. I have too many farmers in my family to not understand what Jessop did to Stubbs.
I can agree with HM that this may have come out of great frustration and stress.
Even if that is the case, it does not excuse the action.
Blues...
I was writing, in my blog post, anyway, about the guiding philosophy....and how literal thinking generally is, in the community...I have come to understand that there really are no hidden meanings or subtle "understandings". The FLDS are very clear and very concrete. It's reefreshing to not always be trying to figure out what is REALLY being said!
Some anon took it to a different level..
Be that as it may, the news articles certainly don't provide enough info to make a judgment either way....
I can think of all sorts of scenerios with multiple culprits or bad guys....
I come from a long line of farmers on one side, too...matter of fact, my great grandfather donated 8000 acres to the Georgia Prison System, back in the middle of the Great Depression, so they could start one of the first prison farms and not have to cost the taxpayers so much to feed 'em!
I do hope the hearing is going "okay" and that she stays out of jail....
There has to be some middle ground that folks can find....
I think Ron is right, this doesn't belong in the middle of a child welfare case...they need to utilize the avenues through the criminal system....that keeps it all kosher and liines aren't crossed....
The law in Texas requires a joint investigation.
The evidence that the AG's Office sought was under the authority of a criminal search warrant, not the paternity order used by CPS.
They are following the proper criminal investigation procedures in this state.
Blues, don't get al puffy and huffy...I didn't just drop in from mars...I may not know Texas statute, or local rules, but I'm not a dolt...
I just hadn't read the articles until a little while ago...so I didn't know the warrant for the DNA was from the AG's office....
I had already posted...and I had,.... my bad...formed an opinion from reading posts and not actually reading anything else...
sorry......lol
You know....
Someone give me a non-subjective and non-relative definition of things like "decency," "happiness" or "success" and I'll make a stab at seeing if behavior fits those labels.
Protecting your faith from a perceived assault would be seen as a very decent and perhaps virtuous act by some.
Being a goon who plows under the crops of a legitimate tenant is an act viewed as many the polar opposite of a decent virtuous act.
Ron, you don't know any more of the story than I do, so all I can assume is you are using your imagination to fill in all the unknowns....
With as little known as has been in the press, I sure don't feel comfortable laying blame at anyone's door....
In my world, your guesswork and a token will get you on the subway.....
hm. I came to read comments about the story posted and instead read opinions about other stories.
Interesting.
Regina, nice job on your article. :)
Regina
I'm just making the case that things like "decency," "happiness," and "success" are wholly dependent on the perceptions and mind of the beholder.
Shoot, I'll bet Hitler was quite happy and felt he was very successful at doing a decent thing when he was exterminating the Jewish people.
S.R. Sorry about that...
For me anyway, it is preferable to going to Brooke's to discuss anything...the poison snake group has someone under every rock and in every cranny, over there....
Ron-
And I am just making the point that we have very limited information available to us to make any kind of reasonable assesment of what occurred.
At least in the context of discussing 'decency'.
We have no knowledge of any of the antecedent events that may have led up to this. Not whether there had been any discussions between the parties. Not whether this was in response to any actions yet to be disclosed. Not whether there had been any attys involved for either party. We simply do not have enough info.
Further, in the context of what I was writing about; the very literal interpretation of language, and the extraordinary expectation of righteous behavior, the actions may constitute illegal behavior, but not unrighteous behavior. Those are two very different discussions.
And, because one or two people make a decision to take their actions to a point of conflict with secualr law, does not mean the entire community would make the same choice(s) under the same circumstances. Each person has free agency. And usually there are multiple ways to stay "right with God". Some of those choices may not bring you into conflict with secular law.
Regina
I agree, we don't have all the facts and therefore we can't apply our subjective filters to say if something is "decent" or not.
Besides, even if we have all the facts, we still will apply those filters.
HEre's a question I've wondered about- and Silver Rose's point touches on it.
Do we define decency by hijacking another person's blog to drag in some pet issue to harange and rant about it on posts that have nothing to do with that issue. We've heard about the field on a post about a young mother and her baby, and now we've heard about it here, and so far it remains an issue about the actions of two individuals. Sorry for my part in furthering that rabbit trail.
So here I'll comment on the post-
I think, Regina, there are subcultures in the 'outside' world that you are not very aware of, and yet they are not so very different from FLDS in many ways. My family would be members of one of them. Often when you are describing differences between the FLDS and the nonFLDS, I don't recognize anything in your description of nonFLDS culture as something that reflects my family or others we know. For instance, I am not sure what you mean when you say "double standards, duplicity, and deceit are so much a part of our daily lives that we have lost all awareness of their existence." Unless you mean something I am not grasping, these things are very much NOT part of my family's daily lives.
(I am not sharing this to be contentious, I just thought it would be sociologically interesting).
Here's another example;
The main things I want for my children:
To be Christians, and to have standards and lives compatible with that Christian faith as defined by the New Testament, not as defined by the world. This includes but is not limited to issues of character, as we have certain doctrinal standards we believe must be met as well.
This was also my mother's goal for her children. I do not believe happiness is a goal, it is a by-product, and I do not want happiness for my children, I want them to be the sorts of people who are happy to be obedient to God.
If they became multi-millionaires, owned houses, cars, yachts, and were wined and dined by heads of state but lost their faith, I would be heartbroken over their failure. I would be much happier for them if they drove broken down cars, wore old clothes and worked at McDonalds but kept their faith.
Success to my husband and I is measured entirely by spiritual standards- some of these things result in certain physical realities- none of my children would marry a nonbeliever, divorce may happen if somebody discards their marital vows or is physically abusive, but there is no other acceptable reason for it for us, credit card debt is a failure of the self-control God wishes us to have, pornography, abortion, immodest dress, dishonesty, theft, fits of anger, cheating, swearing,- these and other things are physical actions not compatible with our faith.
I am not raising my children to measure decency and happiness by standards of a world of consumerism run amok, we are very deliberately countering such consumerism (we primarily give second hand gifts, we buy our clothes at thrift shops, we do not eat out often, and my Progeny learn very, very young that "But Suzie gets to...." was the quickest way in the world to hear a no, with a very concerned talk about why and how that was reflective of a seriously warped standard and contentment was the goal, not being like others in material standards. We have included the children in charitable activities (helping with an orphanage overseas, serving in a soup kitchen, visiting nursing homes, packing boxes of gifts for children in third world countries, having homeless families live with us for a time, bringing home a young single mother from a woman's shelter, spending birthday money on clothing for her children, cleaning a widow's home, etc) so they can see that it is better to give than to receive and they are expected to tithe from the moment they have pocket money.
My family doesn't dress like the mainstream in our culture, we don't listen to the same music, we don't watch television, we don't have the same standards, pursuits, goals, or values- and we are not alone. There are thousands of people like us across the country, who view part of our purpose here as being salt and light in a dark culture.
This is NOT a criticism at all, Regina, I hope it's not taken that way, because I really am only offering these observations as a continuation of the dialogue, but more on topic than previous comments in the thread.
Now our standards for some of these things, decency, modesty, etc, will look different from the FLDS because we have a different starting point. We believe in modesty, for instance, but for us that involves a modesty of dress that is more conservative than the worlds', but less so than FLDS. We don't wear shorts except for sleepwear, for instance, tank tops are under shirts for us, our menfolk do not go shirtless, we don't wear cleavage revealing clothing, skirts above the knee, tight clothing, sleeveless or strapless things, and we don't wear cropped tops. No child of mine will ever dress so his underwear shows while he lives in my home (and the youngest is ten, and so far it's worked very well for us).
In fact, your description of FLDS standards of success and decency sound far more like my family's standards (and those of the people we go to church with) than your description of what 'we' nonFlds mean when we talk of these things.
HM, I was speaking in generalizations about the larger "American Culture" compared to the FLDS culture. My purpose was not to denigrate our larger culture in its' entirety, but to try to foster a better understanding of the uniqueness of the FLDS culture.
So, I struggled with this. Of how to present a way of thinking and life that is community wide and built on a shared religious belief. And also how to present the very concrete use of language that is common in their culture. Both of which are different, in general terms, from our larger culture.
My struggle is because I know that everyone in the mainstream is not the stereotype I painted. Living in mainstream, everyone has made some compromises to the larger culture, not all of them bad. And there are, as you point out, some who deliberately counter the effects of mainstream culture with individual actions and family agendas....
However, pointing out the deviances from mainstream that some individuals have incorporated, doesn't teach, or convey the larger cultural difference...
We have adapted our lives within the mainstream, they have seperated theirs. And that separation is multiple generations old, which has resulted in a language difference which is subtle, and invisible to the unknowing, but a very important aspect of understanding who the FLDS are.
Am I making any sense?
You, and I, and many others, have consciously adapted and remodeled from within, they have never joined.....
By the way, I appreciate the dialogue. I don't see it as contentious. I see that by you and I and others talking, it brings clarity to the original concept and better understanding to the readers about the FLDS community!
Anonymous said...
"Do you define decency by destroying another persons fields?"
No, but I would think it "decent" to plow your own fields that someone else is squatting on!!!
See cheese hit the nail on the head....
Someone define decent....
Ron,
Knowing the vitreol that comes out of yours and Blues mouths against our religion, I'm SURE that you would not be as "calm" about what is and has been happening to us for MANY YEARS and not do something drastic. Either that or you're both big talkers and little do-ers.
I meant to say "if the same thing was happening to you"
Cheese, To both Ron and Blues credit, they have both been behaving in a very civil manner on this blog. I don't have to agree with what they sayor think. Neither do you. But I do have to acknowledge that they both left the nastiness that sometimes crept out from them, in some other place.
And if you look at a lot of their comments, they are not being nasty and are asking questions...trying to learn....
Post a Comment