I absolutely loved the intro to this, including Susan's story, her desire to just deal with one church rather than "good church" and "bad church" as separate things, and her call for us to talk about plural marriage more, not less. I really resonated with all these thoughts. And a huge thank you to Alicia for sharing her incredible story. I haven't been through what she has, but I resonated so much with many things she said. Both seminary and BYU religion teachers taught me that plural marriage applied to my life and future. Alicia's story is a testament that the spiritual and physical abuse caused by LDS plural marriage continues to this day. Not just in smaller break off churches, but also in our own. Like Alicia and her dad, I have arrived at the conclusion it was never divine. For me, it fell apart when supporting women in my life who had gone through betrayal.
Listened to this episode. I have compassion and feel for this woman and her terrible experience.
However many parts of her story seemed very vague. I wondered how and if you check people’s stories?
Do you ask for some kind of verifying information before allowing them to share on your platform? I find it a bit dangerous if not. Yes, I want to believe women’s stories, but I also know there are people out there who will take full advantage of a platform if they can.
I hope stories are verified in some way so that listeners can trust what they are hearing.
Instead of asking women to justify their very vulnerable stories and prove their truth, maybe it's time to examine the cultural biases that might cause many people to doubt women's stories. Could this bias be rooted in the very patriarchy that devalues women and which led to problematic practices like polygamy in the first place?
Women spend most of their lives trying to qualify themselves to be heard and prove their worthiness. Most women don't want to "take full advantage of a platform," they want to foster change and create a safer, more loving world for women and for men. I trust a platform that is trying to do just that.
No, my comment was not about not believing in the this platform, or in the bases of the story which is the terrible practice of polygamy. So don’t try and make it about that!
My criticism was about listening critically and not just believing for the sake of believing. I have spent too many years doing that. There are many stories true and made up.
Anyone who listens to this episode critically would agree it is vague and flawed with lots of details left out.
Just a few examples…
Why was the road in the middle of nowhere so dangerous? Bumpy unpaved road? Curved road? Cliffs on each side?
Why did your husband say he had his gun out? Preparing to hunt? Cleaning it?
And after he almost shot you, what was your reaction? What was his? Why didn’t you go to the police if you thought he attempted to take your life?
If on the road you say he was driving your car, why then did you have to hide the car and wait for your dad to come and get you? Why not drive to him? Or better yet drive your car all the way home?
Last but not least if your husband was as controlling as you say; that would not have been the end of the story. Where is the rest of the story?
None of these questions were asked by the interviewer? Why? I don’t know why.
Could it be because when someone tells a vulnerable story people then believe they aren’t allowed to ask critical and clarifying questions? As a listener I disagree and would appreciate a more thorough interviewer. One who ask the tough questions in order to decipher truth from fiction. And to better understand someone’s story.
I absolutely loved the intro to this, including Susan's story, her desire to just deal with one church rather than "good church" and "bad church" as separate things, and her call for us to talk about plural marriage more, not less. I really resonated with all these thoughts. And a huge thank you to Alicia for sharing her incredible story. I haven't been through what she has, but I resonated so much with many things she said. Both seminary and BYU religion teachers taught me that plural marriage applied to my life and future. Alicia's story is a testament that the spiritual and physical abuse caused by LDS plural marriage continues to this day. Not just in smaller break off churches, but also in our own. Like Alicia and her dad, I have arrived at the conclusion it was never divine. For me, it fell apart when supporting women in my life who had gone through betrayal.
Listened to this episode. I have compassion and feel for this woman and her terrible experience.
However many parts of her story seemed very vague. I wondered how and if you check people’s stories?
Do you ask for some kind of verifying information before allowing them to share on your platform? I find it a bit dangerous if not. Yes, I want to believe women’s stories, but I also know there are people out there who will take full advantage of a platform if they can.
I hope stories are verified in some way so that listeners can trust what they are hearing.
Instead of asking women to justify their very vulnerable stories and prove their truth, maybe it's time to examine the cultural biases that might cause many people to doubt women's stories. Could this bias be rooted in the very patriarchy that devalues women and which led to problematic practices like polygamy in the first place?
Women spend most of their lives trying to qualify themselves to be heard and prove their worthiness. Most women don't want to "take full advantage of a platform," they want to foster change and create a safer, more loving world for women and for men. I trust a platform that is trying to do just that.
No, my comment was not about not believing in the this platform, or in the bases of the story which is the terrible practice of polygamy. So don’t try and make it about that!
My criticism was about listening critically and not just believing for the sake of believing. I have spent too many years doing that. There are many stories true and made up.
Anyone who listens to this episode critically would agree it is vague and flawed with lots of details left out.
Just a few examples…
Why was the road in the middle of nowhere so dangerous? Bumpy unpaved road? Curved road? Cliffs on each side?
Why did your husband say he had his gun out? Preparing to hunt? Cleaning it?
And after he almost shot you, what was your reaction? What was his? Why didn’t you go to the police if you thought he attempted to take your life?
If on the road you say he was driving your car, why then did you have to hide the car and wait for your dad to come and get you? Why not drive to him? Or better yet drive your car all the way home?
Last but not least if your husband was as controlling as you say; that would not have been the end of the story. Where is the rest of the story?
None of these questions were asked by the interviewer? Why? I don’t know why.
Could it be because when someone tells a vulnerable story people then believe they aren’t allowed to ask critical and clarifying questions? As a listener I disagree and would appreciate a more thorough interviewer. One who ask the tough questions in order to decipher truth from fiction. And to better understand someone’s story.