Lots of change all at once

please know that THAT - and the fact that people have asked you to name your religion and you've consistently ignored the question - is where the scepticism is coming from.

It's coming from a few other places too, as far as I'm concerned, but I don't feel like breaking it all down into bite-sized pieces at the moment. Maybe later I'll write it up for those of you at home who are not telepaths.
 
Those people's introductory posts usually start off sounding relatively plausible, but begin to escalate into graphically sexual and/or convoluted scenarios that never seem to resolve, no matter how much sensible advice is offered. At some point, their stories stretch the bounds of credibility, and someone here calls them out... after which they almost always disappear off the scene immediately.

Whelp; here we are then. Haven't heard from "her" in a couple of days. I must admit she stuck around longer than most.
 
Well…it has been a holiday week, so forgive my absence. I have a family to attend to… With only 70 posts in 8 months, it isn’t exactly like I live here. Which is probably a good thing. I walk away from this for a few days, and the whole thing blows up in my face. Nice…

Since it is impossible for me to go through the however-many pages of stuff that has sprung up like mushrooms in my absence, I’ll just hit some highlights.

Let me say first, that the reason I haven’t described too much about my faith is twofold. First, this isn’t a forum about religion. Second, I get the sense that the majority of people here are not exactly in favor of religion, so I’ve tried to avoid turning the conversation in that direction since it causes issues. I’ve also backed off from political discussions here because I got the sense that my views were incredibly different from the rest of you. Most here seem to be left-leaning, and I am not. That means issues deeper than politics…and entirely different worldview. Nothing wrong with that, but we paint the world in entirely different colors. Since you’ve asked for more details, here it is (although I’m not going to give specific locations or data…this is still the internet.)

To answer Ravenscroft… No, the Book of Mormon is not involved, although the core of our older adults actually come out of Mormonism. The only book we accept as divinely inspired is the Bible. While books such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are full of moral teaching, they are not inspired by God. Thus, we are not Mormons, Latter Day Saints, or whatever. We refer to ourselves as the “People of God” or simply “Chosen” and have no affiliation of any kind with LDS, FLDS, or any other splinter group. You can Google search us all day and come up with nothing. Why don’t we have some kind of official church name? Our group doesn’t own property. There’s no building or land that belongs to us, although we hope that will soon change. We meet in each other’s homes. The bishop’s barn is the site of many of our meetings, and our house/yard also hosts a number of them. Church is held with little more than a roof and some folding chairs.

Until my interaction with this forum, I had little idea about what is involved with the FLDS or other fundamentalist groups. We live a long ways from Mormon-land… think Mid-South, rather than Utah/Idaho. Our association is small and has been around only a short time compared to other religious groups, but it is growing…partly due to conversion and mostly due to having children. We may have around three dozen households, but we expect that to grow exponentially in the near future as the next generation grows older. Most households are larger than average – extended families and even friends under one roof. We all live close together – within a few minutes of each other, but not in the same town/neighborhood yet.

It has been asked why we go unnoticed. In the area in which we live, Christian “fundamentalism” (a term I dislike) is pretty normal. Fundamentalist Baptists, Pentecostals, Quiverfulls, etc… are pretty common. Families with 10 or more children are not uncommon in rural areas. Since our whole group doesn’t live in a compound with razor wire and machine guns (ie. Waco) it isn’t going to draw much attention. There are no huge whitewashed buildings poking up above the desert. We don’t dress like the Amish or prairie pioneers, and we live and work in the community like everybody else. Our men are professionals, plumbers, farmers, industrial workers, etc… Our women work outside the home, some work from home, and some simply raise children. Except for what we believe and the fact that we are more self-sufficient than most communities, we appear similar to everyone else. This may change as our goal is to draw closer together property-wise and build a temple, but we just don’t look like Hilldale, Utah.

Unlike the cults, our leadership isn’t centered around one guy. We have a leadership council of seven people, in which people fill “spiritual” and “temporal” posts. My husband serves on this council as the head of security, which is a position of temporal authority. The head of our community is the bishop, who was elected from the spiritual elders of the council. The council members are elected. The idea is that someone in a position of authority only has that authority if they are under the authority of God and the community. The priesthood is held by the heads of families as an ordinance of God. We prefer to meet even our temporal needs within the community first. For example, I will trade vegetables and produce with other members before going to the grocery store. I will purchase hardware from a business that is owned by a member of our community rather than go to the big store in the city. If I have a dispute with a neighbor, I will resolve that with the help of community elders, rather than relying on civil courts. For protection, our security team is the first line of defense. Before going to a doctor in the city, I will rely on our medical resources. It saves time and money, reduces stress, and it just makes sense.

When I was getting ready for marriage, I was coming from a mostly agnostic background. The community and the events that I’ve been part of have helped me to believe. When I was younger, I was unable to have children even though Ares and I tried. Now I’m pregnant. Some people may find a logical/medical explanation for this, but I see God at work. I was close to Ares for so many years without being able to make a relationship work…now we are married. I see this as a gift. In our family, only Reina was born into the faith. The rest of us are converts, which is true of many in our community. There is some turnover… some people have left, but most have stayed. Unlike the FLDS people that are a favorite topic of discussion on this forum, even my family is diverse. I looked up Hilldale, Utah – apparently in terms of heritage it is the most “English” community in the US. My family? My husband is German/Spanish/Cherokee/etc. I’m Slavic. Reina is multi-ethnic. Swift is from Mexico. Artemis is Asian. The difference is pretty striking between a closed/inbred community and one that is open to converts.

“Recruitment” of converts is done person-to-person. Ares fell in love with Reina after a messy divorce. He converted for her. At that time, I was living in a commune, and so was Swift, who was in the care of a friend of mine. Swift attached herself to Reina, converted, and declared her intention to marry Ares (which she did when she grew older). Later, when Ares’ household and mine were located close together, Reina and Renarde fell in love, and Renarde converted. Corsac and I followed, at which point Ares and I rekindled our relationship. This whole process took years. Not everyone converts. My sister lived with me in the commune, and is still friends with Swift. She has no inclination toward joining our faith. It is a personal choice.
 
There has definitely been a lot of change in my life in the past few months, but I would say that involving more people means that there will always be more going on. I would expect that would be true for poly families, but apparently the average member of this forum lives in peace and calm and has a rather small household of four members or less (I posted a poll on that one once.) In my life, chaos is normal, and not much surprises me anymore. The only question is how to deal with it. Last November/December, I was faced with joining my triad to my husband’s triad. My family went from two girlfriends to a husband, two sister-wives, and two girlfriends plus another female living in close proximity and several young kids. With this mix, just about anything can happen…and it has. I recall a comment one of my coworkers made about his family…that with his wife, several kids, dogs, etc… “Its always something!” My posts here have been an attempt to make sense of it all…mostly just a way of sorting my thoughts so I can act with clarity. It also helps me cure my insomnia occasionally.

Descriptions of my involvement with my husband and my girlfriends have supposedly ranged from “lurid” to “implausible,” as well as “graphic. “ Not my intention, and if I was writing erotic fiction I’m pretty sure I could have given much more detailed descriptions of sexual tastes and activities. I’ve tried to keep it “PG-13” as there was no reason for more…I doubt there’s any publishable material here for even the cheapest novel. My husband calls those paperback romance books “boddess burners” :rolleyes:

The purpose of marriage and sex in our faith is to have children and provide a cemented social unit. Marriage then becomes a contract in which there are two portions– the vows said before religious authority, and the sex act itself. So, when I had my wedding night, it was witnessed. Not by a giant group of people, not by the community, but by a couple of people that I chose who could testify to the validity of the marriage. It seems awkward, but in the months since my wedding I have come to appreciate the practicality of it. Having witnesses is a demonstration of the willingness of the man to provide his partner with children and pleasure, as well as a test of his ability. It also demonstrates the willingness of the woman to submit her entire body to her husband and to bond with her sister-wives.

Sex is supposed to be reserved for within marriage. This is where it has gotten difficult in my relationships. Same-sex relations between men are forbidden as it is explicitly condemned in Scripture. Same-sex relations between women is simply unmentioned, as it is unmentioned in Scripture. Opposite-sex relations are supposed to happen within marriage. My introduction of my girlfriends into my bedroom was not normal for my faith, but my husband and I agreed on it as a way that we could be together. As long as nobody really knew about it, no harm, right? However, my husband’s relationship with Renarde is entirely abnormal for our faith, and has caused quite a bit of stress. According to our standards, she could (and should) demand to be married at this point, and the rest of us should insist that they do so. My feelings toward this have been mixed, but the last few days I’ve felt more and more like I really disapprove of his relations with her unless they marry. It just doesn’t seem right, and I think that he has made a mistake that he ought to fix….and I made a mistake also in permitting it. I have no idea how to un-ring this bell.

As I mentioned before, childbearing is a chief goal of marriage and sex. God’s people are encouraged to be fruitful and multiply, and sex is supposed to further this goal at all times. Birth control is not allowed. Neither men nor women are permitted “except for a time and by mutual agreement” to deny sex to each other. A man’s sperm is regarded as belonging to his wife or wives – available on demand. Its purpose is the production of children, and the nourishment of the women’s bodies (via hormones, etc…). To place sperm outside of a woman’s body is to commit the “sin of Onan” by depriving the sex act of its procreative or nourishing purpose. Male masturbation and/or sex with unmarried women defrauds wives of the nutrients/hormones/chemicals they need for proper mental balance and health, as well as the right to become pregnant.

Sex between women serves a purpose. Since it is not forbidden in Scripture (being non-penetrative and non-procreative in nature) it is permitted. Prior to marriage, girls are able to relieve sexual tension with their female friends, which preserves chastity and prevents pregnancy outside of marriage. Practically speaking, women have a higher sex drive than men and a greater need for satisfaction. Within marriage, sexual pleasure bonds sister-wives together and reduces disputes and jealousy. Since Scripture doesn’t give specific guides regarding sex, much of it is left to logic and science. Polygamy/Polyamory is an example of this. Scripture only gives one rule regarding “one man plus one woman” and that is for spiritual leaders. In our community, spiritual elders and the bishop are only permitted to have one wife, so as to focus more on matters of the soul. As Scripture is silent on other issues and in fact has examples of families with more than one wife (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) then it is logical that polygamy/polyamory is permitted.

Maybe it seems like I’m sex-focused…it is an interest of mine, and something I enjoy. Prior to marriage and before my relationship with my girlfriends, I had many, many partners. Sex also has the potential to cause major problems, so it ends up being a topic for discussion. But the reality is that most of us spend our time doing the mundane things that everybody else does. I go to work. Corsac and Reina tend the garden. We all take care of the kids. Ares works and has community responsibilities. Renarde has a job online doing graphic design. My mother-in-law tends the sick and makes herbal medicines. Swift plays music during her free time. Pretty normal, really.

Anyways, that's about all I have to contribute to the feeding frenzy. Time for bed.
 
Gah, the more you try to explain, the more you contradict things you said before, the less your story sounds credible. Just stop insulting our intelligence. GTFO.
 
By your own admission, MajorMerrick, there is no way to verify the existence of your religion. Be that as it may, I can accept your first post, above, detailing the structure and demographics of your faith. (Not that you need me or anyone else to accept it.)

What I can't get my head around is some of the doctrine and aspects of belief that go with this faith of yours, namely:

The purpose of marriage and sex in our faith is to have children and provide a cemented social unit. Marriage then becomes a contract in which there are two portions– the vows said before religious authority, and the sex act itself. So, when I had my wedding night, it was witnessed.

Having witnesses is a demonstration of the willingness of the man to provide his partner with children and pleasure, as well as a test of his ability. It also demonstrates the willingness of the woman to submit her entire body to her husband and to bond with her sister-wives.

There is no other religious group (that I know of), even strict fundamentalist, convert-centred churches, that insist that the actual sex act between husband and wife be "witnessed" by others.

Moreover, how is this proof of anything except that sex has taken place? If PIV and/or anal sex on the wedding night is enforced/encouraged by the church, it seems to me that it doesn't so much "demonstrate the willingness of the woman to submit her entire body to her husband and bond with her sister-wives" as it's coercive and voyeuristic.

Tell me what eighteen year old virgin (for example) is really going to want her first experience of sexual intimacy, particularly anal sex - both of which often include some degree of pain and self-consciousness for most young women - to be witnessed, critiqued or documented one or more others? The only way I see this happening is if she has been indoctrinated into believing it's the will of God or of the "elders", or if she feels she has no choice in the matter.

How does it demonstrate the husband's "willingness to provide his partner with children and pleasure, as well as a test of his ability" if the sex act is expected or enforced and has to be witnessed? It seems to me that all it would prove is that the male is ABLE to consummate the marriage. What if his new wife experiences pain and bleeding... what if she doesn't orgasm? Is he deemed deficient? What if the husband or wife turns out to be infertile?

Sex is supposed to be reserved for within marriage. This is where it has gotten difficult in my relationships. Same-sex relations between men are forbidden as it is explicitly condemned in Scripture. Same-sex relations between women is simply unmentioned, as it is unmentioned in Scripture.
My introduction of my girlfriends into my bedroom was not normal for my faith, but my husband and I agreed on it as a way that we could be together. As long as nobody really knew about it, no harm, right? However, my husband’s relationship with Renarde is entirely abnormal for our faith, and has caused quite a bit of stress.

Either way you look at it, your family/polycule seem to be cherry-picking parts of scripture and using technicalities (at best) or (at worst) knowingly acting hypocritically to suit your purposes. I think you know that, which is why it's causing you stress. If God or a omniscient higher power does exist - and I am not an atheist - surely He/she/it sees and knows what you do behind closed doors, even if the church elders and others do not. Therefore if something is against God or your faith, it's still "wrong" or harmful, even if no other human being ever finds out.


According to our standards, she could (and should) demand to be married at this point, and the rest of us should insist that they do so. My feelings toward this have been mixed, but the last few days I’ve felt more and more like I really disapprove of his relations with her unless they marry. It just doesn’t seem right, and I think that he has made a mistake that he ought to fix….and I made a mistake also in permitting it. I have no idea how to un-ring this bell.

As an elder or leader in the church, your husband already knows what goes against the teachings of his faith. YET he jumped at the chance to "help" Renarde "explore" her sexuality, despite them not being married. He committed a sexual act with her that is reserved only for married people. Moreover, if Renarde considers herself BOTH male and female, and chose to participate in anal sex with Ares, then it could be argued that Ares participated in homosexual relations (since you say this was Renarde expressing her "male" side.)

It seems to me that, in addition to your faith's practice of polygamy; the acceptance of sex between sister-wives (lesbian sex); and sharing the marital bed between many people who witness or participate in group sex... your own family's "tailoring" of your church's rules relating to sex has led to an overall loosening of the rules/boundaries/"morals" your church purports to uphold. How Ares/Renarde choose to resolve this is between them, however, unless one or more of his wives decide to force the issue by reporting the matter to the church council.

As I mentioned before, childbearing is a chief goal of marriage and sex. God’s people are encouraged to be fruitful and multiply, and sex is supposed to further this goal at all times. Birth control is not allowed. Neither men nor women are permitted “except for a time and by mutual agreement” to deny sex to each other. A man’s sperm is regarded as belonging to his wife or wives – available on demand. Its purpose is the production of children

Your church is not alone in this belief, or similar. However, the scriptures this "goal" was based on were written thousands of years ago, before the earth became vastly overpopulated and its resources more and more scarce.

Personally, I believe we should not be encouraging people to procreate without limit... but population control/birth control/abstinence is at odds with the Evangelistic nature of faiths such as yours, which rely on new blood to expand and further the cause. In my opinion, this is a pretty self-serving, short-term view of our joint future.


Male masturbation and/or sex with unmarried women defrauds wives of the nutrients/hormones/chemicals they need for proper mental balance and health, as well as the right to become pregnant. Sex between women serves a purpose. Since it is not forbidden in Scripture (being non-penetrative and non-procreative in nature) it is permitted. Prior to marriage, girls are able to relieve sexual tension with their female friends, which preserves chastity and prevents pregnancy outside of marriage.

You say women are permitted to engage in same-sex relations and/or masturbate to relieve sexual tension - so wouldn't adolescent and young unmarried males or widowers also have the same feelings that could be relieved by masturbation, in lieu of being left sexually frustrated or marrying prematurely just so they can have sex?

And since pubescent girls release an egg each month when they ovulate, aren't these eggs also potential/unborn children that are "wasted" if not fertilised? Yet it seems "every sperm is sacred" to quote Monty Python, but ova are not.


Practically speaking, women have a higher sex drive than men and a greater need for satisfaction.

This is a gross over-generalisation. (Some) women are capable of multiple orgasms, sure, and our sex-drives tend to peak later in life... but until then, male sex-drive tends to be higher/more urgent. Even among women with naturally very high sex-drives, our libido and willingness to participate in sexual activity can be negatively affected or limited by other aspects such as our general state of mind/mood, overall health, hormonal headaches and pain around the time of our periods, whether we're having a bad day at work or conflict with a significant other, etc etc. Men can also experience most of these things, certainly, however unless the man has a low libido in general, most healthy males don't usually experience a significant lack of drive/ability to perform until they hit middle-age.


As Scripture is silent on other issues and in fact has examples of families with more than one wife (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) then it is logical that polygamy/polyamory is permitted.

You classify your faith/sect as "Christian", MajorMerrick. As a former Catholic, it was my understanding that the Old Testament laws were supposed to be superseded by the New Testament, which contains the teachings of Jesus Christ. Using examples from Old Testament stories to justify plural marriage is once again another example of how many evangelical/fundamentalist groups cherry-pick what laws and practices they wish to uphold/promote.
 
Great job, LB, picking apart the religious hypocrisy.

I was thinking more along the lines of how a small group of a few dozen families who

all live close together – within a few minutes of each other, but not in the same town/neighborhood yet.

(Wtf does that even mean? It contradicts itself:confused:)

...manage to have doctors (actual MDs, or "holistic herbalists" like Mrs. Ares-in-law?), lawyers (actual people with law degrees, or "counsellors"), butchers, bakers, plumbers, electricians, police (do you call your own fire department and have a bucket brigade when your house is burning down?), etc. Etc.

Are they planning to start their own schools/colleges too? I'm hard pressed to believe that education is a top priority when it comes to raising the children born into this cult (especially girl children). I'm sure the kids are all being "home schooled" :rolleyes:

But all this speculation is hypothetical, since there are so many flaws and inconsistencies and back-pedaling in the OP's narrative, that make one question the veracity of *all* of this.
 
Last edited:
I was happier believing this was fake. Not that I'm completely sold on this or anything, but I've read through the other posts, and she seems to be doing a lot more "work" than a troll.

Since I'm a practicing mono, a lot of what I read here just sort of goes over my head, but I have found this community to be very insightful about human relationships and communication. Also, my politics are closely aligned with many here. I had refrained from commenting on Major Merrick too much because I though my very "mono-ness" colored my judgement too much. After Major Merrick explained a little bit more about her religion, I'm pretty sure that I am comfortable in stating that this religion is pretty destructive.

I will have to disclose that I'm agnostic, teetering on atheist, so that does color my perception. I look at the bible as a book of white male propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Great job, LB, picking apart the religious hypocrisy.
I was thinking more along the lines of how a small group of a few dozen families who <<<all live close together – within a few minutes of each other, but not in the same town/neighborhood yet.>>>
(Wtf does that even mean? It contradicts itself
:confused:)

...manage to have doctors (actual MDs, or "holistic herbalists" like Mrs. Ares-in-law?), lawyers (actual people with law degrees, or "counsellors"), butchers, bakers, plumbers, electricians, police

I was wondering the same thing.

But all this speculation is hypothetical, since there are so many flaws and inconsistencies and back-pedaling in the OP's narrative, that make one question the veracity of *all* of this.

And yeah, just playing "devil's advocate" here, assuming everything MM says is true to the letter.

It just seems rather convenient that someone who was a self-proclaimed highly sexual "lesbian agnostic" only half a year ago or so, has managed to find a religion/sect/cult that has not only resulted in her finally being able to marry the man for whom she long held a torch, but ALSO allows same-sex relations and group sex type activities.
 
I was wondering the same thing.



And yeah, just playing "devil's advocate" here, assuming everything MM says is true to the letter.

It just seems rather convenient that someone who was a self-proclaimed highly sexual "lesbian agnostic" only half a year ago or so, has managed to find a religion/sect/cult that has not only resulted in her finally being able to marry the man for whom she long held a torch, but ALSO allows same-sex relations and group sex type activities.


And if true as described, this cult *was* founded by disgruntled (F?)LDS members, after all.

There you go, Ravenscroft :p
 
My reason for publicly voicing my doubts about the veracity of your posts, MajorMerrick, was because I was concerned that others were becoming unduly worried about your safety and I felt like someone needed to voice the possibility that this all wasn't real.

Frankly, though, I don't care if it is real or not. You have the ability (financially, legally, physically) to leave at any time and you seem hell-bent on defending your choice to stay, so I'm not going to touch any of that.

What confuses me, though, is why you choose to post here. This is a forum about polyamory, and yet your views are in direct contrast to the ethical tenets of polyamory. Let's take a look at the two major frameworks of polyamory (according to Franklin Veux):

1. The people in the relationship are more important than the relationship.
2. Don't treat people as things.

I thought about quoting the entire Relationship Bill of Rights, but let's just keep it simple and focus on the big picture. You don't seem to subscribe to either of these core beliefs.

Examples:

Once you are in a relationship, you don't believe you have the right to revoke consent for their access to your body/attention/affection unless you are ill. (You believe it is acceptable to be treated as a thing, instead of a person, in a relationship.)

Even before committing to a relationship, you don't really believe you have the right to say no to it. Artemis decides she wants a relationship with you? You go along with it, even though you are already exhausted by your current relationships. Not to mention, you originally were focused on trying to set up Ares and Artemis, even though neither of them wanted that relationship. And you mention that your current desire to please Artemis is, in part, driven by the fact that you believe Ares will eventually realize that he is in love with Artemis and you want to be ready for that situation. (Prioritizing the relationships above the people in the relationships.)

Based on your original posts, not this most recent post in which you claim you and Corsac converted before you rekindled your relationship with Ares, your initial decision to convert to this religion and marry Ares was motivated, at least in part, by the fact that Renarde was in love with Reina and desired more access to Reina. Your girlfriends arranged for you to wake up in bed with him so that he could propose. You were, at least according to your posts on the forum, still not sure about this decision at the time and you felt pressured/rushed. (In this case, all those involved are both treating you as a thing in order to advance their own goals and also prioritizing the relationship/marriage ahead of the people in the relationship.)

You believe that the only right thing to do in this situation between Renarde and Ares is for them to marry. Recall that Renarde is averse to vaginal penetration. According to your description of your religion's belief's and practices, Renarde and Ares getting married would mean that Renarde would have to consent (at least once, with witnesses) to unprotected vaginal intercourse with Ares in order to prove their willingness to have children. Again, this is an example of you prioritizing the relationship (in this case, the institution of marriage) above the needs/desires of the people in the relationship. You are also treating Renarde as a thing -- saying that because Renarde consented to anal sex with someone, s/he now must consent to marriage, vaginal intercourse, and (possibly) childbearing.

I could go on and on. But I'll stop there because I've got other shit to do today. My point is, regardless of religion, why are you on a forum about polyamory when you don't seem to believe in the fundamental concepts of polyamory?
 
Oh well, I've got some time on my hands too... Just like our [busy working pregnant having sex every spare minute with 6 people] authoress.

the whole thing blows up in my face. Nice…

Your so called beliefs (and sex acts they lead to) are weird and fundamentalist. Even by fundamentalist standards, even by BDSM standards. Of course things are going to "blow up." You've put forward some lurid shit here, my dear. This is a board for modern polyamory (emphasis on feminism], not a board for quiverfull patriarchal sex addicts.


the reason I haven’t described too much about my faith is twofold. First, this isn’t a forum about religion.

It's not "about" religion, but some poly people are religious or spiritual. Hence, the section on our board entitled "Spirituality." Maybe you never browsed that far before starting your porn saga.

Second, I get the sense that the majority of people here are not exactly in favor of religion, so I’ve tried to avoid turning the conversation in that direction since it causes issues.

Yeah, sure you tried :rolleyes:... BTW, you're defining "religion" as "Christianity," or your own flavor of Christianity, as regards your probably false persona here. As if Christianity is the only religion extant.

Since you’ve asked for more details, here it is (although I’m not going to give specific locations or data…this is still the internet.)

Why are you even on the Internet? You've got so much work to do, fucking to do, an adult baby on your lap, other women's actual children to tend to, and a baby in your uterus to hopefully nourish, though that seems to be the farthest thing from your mind.

Oh, let's not forget that's a Miracle Baby TM. Typical troll material right there.

The Book of Mormon is not involved, although the core of our older adults actually come out of Mormonism. The only book we accept as divinely inspired is the Bible. While books such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are full of moral teaching...

You seem pretty familiar with "The Book of Mormon" and other Mormon books already, despite not believing in them being inspired, despite being in this "faith" a mere 6 months. Despite the polygynous aspect of both that faith and yours (or rather your imagining of a fictional offshoot; to be able to describe to us all the yummy lesbian sex).

...they are not inspired by God. Thus, we are not Mormons, Latter Day Saints...

It's just the "elders" of your very young church that are former Mormons! :D :rolleyes: How old are your elders? 38?

Why don’t we have some kind of official church name? Our group doesn’t own property. There’s no building or land that belongs to us, ...

Churches don't need land to have a name. The first Christians didn't have land or official discrete gathering places for hundreds of years. Yet, they were known as Christians.

Until my interaction with this forum, I had little idea about what is involved with the FLDS or other fundamentalist groups.

That is patently ridiculous. You must know way more than we do. You say you know the books of the Mormons are not, to your elders' belief, inspired divinely. You now believe them. You decided to believe them because? Because you are familiar with LDS and find it false. (In your fictive reportage here.) The only person herewho quoted wiki stuff about Mormonism to you was Ravenscroft. Are you saying you found out about the roots of your religion from a member HERE who linked you to Wikipedia? And you're bringing a child into this cult. Not very plausible, to say the least.

Our association is small and has been around only a short time compared to other religious groups, but it is growing…partly due to conversion and mostly due to having children. We may have around three dozen households, but we expect that to grow exponentially in the near future as the next generation grows older. Most households are larger than average – extended families and even friends under one roof. We all live close together – within a few minutes of each other, but not in the same town/neighborhood yet.

3 dozen households of a dozen people each, let's say, including infants, and your live a few minutes apart but not in the same town? A few being 3-6 minutes. 7 minutes being several. How can, say, 100 people, be 5ish minutes apart (by foot? by car?) and not be in the same neighborhood?

It has been asked why we go unnoticed. In the area in which we live, Christian “fundamentalism” (a term I dislike) is pretty normal.

Y'all sound pretty fundamental, honey. The fundamentals of these types of faiths are: extreme patriarchy, quiverfull, meeting in each other's homes, submission of the woman's body to the man, sperm being sacred. Those are your fundamentals. Control of women. Evangelism. Children used to bloat your church numbers. Poor brainwashed kids.

I know this type of fundamentalist has in recent years, come to see it as a derogatory term, but the term was coined by the people who practiced it in the first place, a term of pride. I will not use the term "fundy," as I agree that is used derogatorily.

Our men are professionals, plumbers, farmers, industrial workers, etc…

So "your women" aren't professionals. Of course.

Our women work outside the home, some work from home...

but don't have professions...

...and some simply raise children.

How do they "simply" raise children when they spend every spare hour fucking their half dozen lovers? LOL

...our goal is to draw closer together property-wise and build a temple, but we just don’t look like Hilldale, Utah.

No, you just aspire to look like that in 10 years or so. That makes you non-Mormon offshoot how?

Get your sewing skills up to scratch (in between all the lesbi-anal sex), you'll need those pastel prairie dresses soon enough.

We have a leadership council of seven people,

Only 7? All the best cults have 12.
 
Last edited:
I could go on point by point, but this is a long story "she" has written.

One fun thing to note: the first penis in vagina or anal sex between a man and his wife needs to be witnessed. The author assumes it will be witnessed by sister-wives. What if the bride is the first wife? Who witnesses then?

What is the consequence if the male is nervous and can't get hard on his wedding night? Or ejaculates prematurely not in the vagina? Cums on the labia or in the anus or the delicate hand or mouth of his bride who is attempting to arouse him, instead of in the vagina? Immediate annulment? Or does he get a 2nd, 3rd, 4th chance in front of whoever is on hand to "witness?"

Is there "bonding" going on between the (non-wife) witnesses to a first wife's defloration and the new married couple?

Back in the day, bloodstained sheets were enough. Of course, some brides brought in a vial of chicken blood just in case her hymen was already a bit impaired. But as long as nobody knows... it's OK, right?

I still can't stop laughing at the idea that it's OK for Ares to fuck a gold star lesbian, gender fluid person "deeply and vigorously" in the ass, "as long as nobody knows." Sure sure, Major, you question it now... but it was so fun to see in the moment; you didn't object, huh? It was kind of exciting to "witness." And maybe be diddled by one of your other gfs as it was happening...

Yeah, this story isn't lurid at all.
 
you question it now... but it was so fun to see in the moment; you didn't object, huh? It was kind of exciting to "witness." And maybe be diddled by one of your other gfs as it was happening...

Yeah, this story isn't lurid at all.

But she only uses one, maybe two fingers...
 
Why are you even on the Internet? You've got so much work to do, fucking to do, an adult baby on your lap, other women's actual children to tend to, and a baby in your uterus to hopefully nourish, though that seems to be the farthest thing from your mind.

That's about where I'm at at this point. Not enough time. I'm on the internet every couple of days...so you're right about me being busy.

MsEmotional references the "tenets" of polyamory. Which I'm guessing is pretty much the same as rules. The upshot of it is... those on this forum subscribe to one set of rules. I subscribe to another. Those two aren't going to meet anytime soon. My husband actually asked me today when I mentioned our conversation on here, "Why do you spend time on this? What good does it do to antagonize people?" Which, judging by everybody's reactions in this thread, is what's going on.

I originally posted on this forum last year as a way of figuring out my thoughts, seeing what other people are up to, and determining my direction. As much flak as I've received for it, it has helped. So, thanks for that.
 
My husband actually asked me today when I mentioned our conversation on here, "Why do you spend time on this? What good does it do to antagonize people?" Which, judging by everybody's reactions in this thread, is what's going on.

I originally posted on this forum last year as a way of figuring out my thoughts, seeing what other people are up to, and determining my direction. As much flak as I've received for it, it has helped. So, thanks for that.

Well, I'm glad you got something out of it.

I think that maybe the antagonism stems from the fact that your relationship structure is basically a stereotype that so many polyAMOROUS people are fighting against. Polyamory, from the six years I have spent on here, is about behaving in a responsible, loving, ethical manner that demands equality amongst men, women, and everyone in between.

What you describe, Major Merrick, is a household where a child (Swift) is brought up from the age of 11 by people who are eventually going to sexually exploit her. You, YOU, Major Merrick, were a mother figure in this girl's life, and now you're fucking her? And she has two kids by the age of 20? Her wedding night consisted of anal sex that was witnessed by others?

That's just one example of what I'm talking about. If you get a kick out of being the (negative) center of attention, then be my guest.
 
Well, I'm glad you got something out of it.

I think that maybe the antagonism stems from the fact that your relationship structure is basically a stereotype that so many polyAMOROUS people are fighting against. Polyamory, from the six years I have spent on here, is about behaving in a responsible, loving, ethical manner that demands equality amongst men, women, and everyone in between.

What you describe, Major Merrick, is a household where a child (Swift) is brought up from the age of 11 by people who are eventually going to sexually exploit her. You, YOU, Major Merrick, were a mother figure in this girl's life, and now you're fucking her? And she has two kids by the age of 20? Her wedding night consisted of anal sex that was witnessed by others?

That's just one example of what I'm talking about. If you get a kick out of being the (negative) center of attention, then be my guest.

It's as if this whole thing was written from the perspective of a male fantasy. Sooo much lesbianal secks (thanks mags for the portmanteau).
 
It's as if this whole thing was written from the perspective of a male fantasy. Sooo much lesbianal secks (thanks mags for the portmanteau).

No problem.

It's definitely a male fantasy. One man surrounded by a half dozen oversexed bisexual women. And friends/lovers of his wives (who are not his wives) are also welcome into his (apparently larger than king size) bed. And these friends can also be fucked...despite the religion's prohibition of sex outside of marriage, because "no one will ever know."

Also, down in this sleepy rural Southern area, somehow there are 100 people living in gigantic houses large enough for approximately 7 adults and at least that many children (by the "tenets" of this religion, each wife should have at least 3 children, if not 10). All households within 5 minutes of each other.

Hell, the Duggars in Arkansas had/have 19 kids and their house is enormous! Big dormitories for the kids, who were all full siblings, not half siblings, and yet still managed some incest.

I also wonder how a pregnant woman gets up out of a crowded bed to pee 3 or 4 times a night. But the author obviously has no idea of the reality of pregnancy. That's just a breeder fantasy inserted into the one man/six women fantasy.
 
Also, down in this sleepy rural Southern area, somehow there are 100 people living in gigantic houses large enough for approximately 7 adults and at least that many children (by the "tenets" of this religion, each wife should have at least 3 children, if not 10). All households within 5 minutes of each other.

So much diversity too.. They have the Native Americans, Asians, Latinos, and Eastern Europeans covered already. I think the next wife should be a Black woman, don't you? That would complete the collection.

Let's see if there are any more "updates" on this sexing "family".
 
Last edited:
Back
Top