Hi we are new to this and taking on a second wife how dose other families deal w monies and multiple incomes and family planning .
From what I understand a man that is Mormon who allows his wife to control the money is lamed. This is why the man needs to be really good with money and put his wife and family needs before his own.
“The minute a man turns over the finances to his wife and lets her handle the checking account, lets her keep track of the bookkeeping, he is lamed... No woman should ever handle the finances in a celestial family. This must be solely the responsibility of the man, the head of the family..."("The Apostolic United Brethren").
The Apostolic United Brethren. Retrieved from http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/ChartLinks/AUB.htm
The "FLDS experience" with communism, socialism, and fascism at the group or family level is an abysmal failure, historically speaking.
It's just too easy to throw out some rhetoric and undertake compulsory conformity.
My father was a good money manager. Well, sorta. . . . I mean he kept pretty tight control of things. But nobody really ended up being happy with it.
My wife's father left the "FLDS" branch he started with because he didn't agree with the financial dealings of the honcho, and developed a system of giving each wife an equal portion of the income, augmented somewhat according to the number of children and the capacity and skills they had for helping out.
In both cases, nobody starved, and nobody got a life of leisure at anyone else's expense. But my father-in-law taught his kids business skills.
The AUB model of "United Order" is wrong, or at least was wrong when I checked it out. People "consecrate" their means. . . . give a bishop the title to any property. The Bishop or whoever is over it in the AUB then gives the folks a "lease" back, say on their home or whatever. They no longer own anything.
This error has been in most of the FLDS offshoots since John Y. Barlow's time. These groups pay lip service to the 1886 "meeting" which is usually understood as providing an authoritative continuation of earlier LDS Priesthood organization existing from the time of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. But the early teachings of those actually present in that meeting include statements like "Do not organize another church", "Do not separate into 'colonies'", and in general encouraged those who would stand under that line of authority to remain faithful with the Church, as far as possible to give every assistance to the the mission of the main Church in teaching and ordinance work.
My basis for saying the AUB and other groups attempting to "live the law of consecration" under the "United Order" or "United Effort" concepts are "wrong" comes from an issue that developed in Missouri with the first Presiding Bishop of the Church, an Edward Partridge. He was taking deeds of consecrated real property, and giving back "leases' or "life estates". The scriptures state that the stewardship properties placed in the hands the of member should be "inheritances" for his children. . . that means should be deeded in his name, and left in his estate when he dies, and inherited by his children.
That should translate in the case of a polygamous family to each wife having her part of the property in her name. For her children.
It is an unfortunate thing that most LDS experiments with economic communalism have missed that point. Joseph Smith wrote Edward Partridge a letter and condemned it, saying Bishop Partridge would be damned if he did not deed the property back to the "Stewards" who received the use of it. The idea was not to have a Church owning all the property, but to have people so far as possible living on the land and making use of it according to their best talents. If somebody had more land than he could care for, he was simply given a means of getting some help in finding someone who could care for it.
Socialism didn't work in the Plymouth colony of Puritans, either.
I think a man who controls money in his family in a way that stifles individual accountability and individual choice is to that extent sacrificing "agency" for a false "unity".
"Agency" is the capacity of human beings to develop their own skills in decision-making, learning to be effective in dealing with life necessities and solving life's problems.
"Unity" is a bond of love and caring that should always be given freely, day in and day out. False "unity" is dictating, from a position of control, that things should be done "just so". Yes, you are all united in that "government" but you are all peasants, wards, dependent creatures. You might have jobs, and you might earn significant wages, but you are not "free" and your "unity" is controlled, maybe contrived. . . . and maybe not a real virtue of wanting to help others either. A man who runs it that way is possibly "exercising unrighteous dominion". Maybe nobody cares to object, but nobody really has the incentives of actual freedom in their everyday decisions, either.
hmmmm. . . . .
I just might get banned from this site for saying this.
So are you saying all AUB members turn over all their Property to their church? AUB members don't own a home but lease it back?????
I have heard this in other FLDS churches but didn't think the AUB was run that way.
If I moved to Lehi Utah I could not join AUB and own a home???
Didn't the sisterwives fokes sell their home and move????
In the AUB you are still "free" to own a home and just not participate in the economic "unity", just as you are "free" to not live the celestial marriage principle. You are still "free" to attend regular or mainstream LDS meetings as well.
There may be some differences between specific "bishops" handling of things, as well. You also will run into the actual leaders' opinions and views about your level of commitment. People can think, say, or do practically anything, however contradictory. The leadership style is different from other FLDS groups, more like it was when the LDS mainstream Church held the door open for those who wanted to apply these "higher" principles.
But there have been many families try to leave the AUB from the position of having given the actual ownership of their homes to the group, and not getting them back.
My point is that their rules, at least in legal papers I saw, are contrary to the D&C idea of inheritable property. So is the mainstream LDS "welfare farm" concept in that productive property is held in ownership by the LDS Church corporate organization. Other scriptures in the New Testament and Book of Mormon indicate common ownership of productive farm or business property are viewed by idealists much the same way as the communist practice of State ownership and operation of productive property. In feudal Europe, the ownership was vested in nobles, Kings, and the Catholic Church. The result is always the same. Individual destitution for the large majority, and leaders who dictate their lives.
An authoritative "father" in a family can exert the same controlling power on family members in the name of "unity", to the detriment of "freedom" or "agency".
Christian virtue as Jesus taught it, in my view, held various virtues as derived from the intents of the persons' hearts. The various enemies of Jesus were concerned, it seems, because they took His teachings as a threat to their own kind of power over the lives of their subjects.
I've seen idealistic people suffer under all these kinds of "leadership", living lives of poverty without learning to use good judgment in managing their own resources.
There is a fundamental reason why some economic theories just don't work. I think it's because socialism, even under paternal or religious cloaks, is just wrong.
Babe, from what I have learned about AUB, you are pretty accurate in your description on how it works there, as far as my understanding goes. No you are not required to consecrate your property, but do have the opportunity to join an "order" if you choose. Personally, there is no way I would turn over my property to any organization, as it is to be inherited by my own children. I guess if you want to be scriptural about it, a "patriarchal" or Abrahamic concept is more likely to be successful than an apostolic succession in terms of personal property. As in any organization, control is paramount, an how better to do that than controlling ones future by owning everything they "have". Thanks for your remarks.
in regards to dogma and belief,
the concept of men controlling the actions and especially the MINDS of men is a very limited and obviously detrimental system.
AUB or any other group is controlled by men which have created rules and guidelines which DICTATE what 'God' has prescribed.
YET. there are over 10,000 Christian sects alone. not to mention other faiths. and EACH perceives itself to have the ONLY truth and the ONLY way.
so..are we to believe that God, in his infinite wisdom has prescribed that only a few thousand out of almost 7 billion people are following his will?
each sect ...screaming from the pulpit they are right and the next door church is wrong? Insane. plain insane.
It is truly time TO CALL ALL MEN... to admit with humility that they DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT AND ALL ENCOMPASSING TRUTH....and is well advised that it will be beneficial for ALL MEN to acknowledge that yes, God may certainly commune with them on certain matters but....yet...that each needs to proclaim that they alone are NOT the only guiding light on this earth for the salvation of men..and ..if they continue to act as solely willful and self-important then ..they only deceive themselves and those that follow them....and that action is a travesty in this day and age .....which is filled with vast deception of the adversary.
Let us step forward in boldness with the humility that we DO NOT KNOW the will of God. Shall we stand on our personal interpretation of ancient scripture unto the division of each other forever? I say no!
Has God told any of us that other christian churches are FALSE? ...NO HE HAS NOT!
grab hold of your senses, Men ...and stand fast. GOD LIVES...yet he does not preach division !
It is only men that preach division.
Thanks for responding.
I would say to keep the communication open, work together as a family with a budget, every dollar has a name and a purpose.
Enjoy the study of
We have a lot of replies here which is good. Our story went like this.
We are not part of any organized group so just hanging out on our own. While some people have the idea a wife should not control the finances, our family has done well with a wife doing it. A general overview is available on an excel spreadsheet at any time.
We have seemingly always had enough money to pay bills and none of us are extravagant nor competitive. We each have our own checking accounts but most all of the money goes into one account where all the bills and groceries are paid from. Any purchase or gift , like over $100.00, we usually all chat about, or let each other know. If there have been unexpected large expenses in one month, for instance, nothing but bills and groceries will be purchased until we know we are caught up.
In thinking on this it does take a lot of trust in each other. Some people are naturally better with numbers and finances than others. We have always played to our strengths in our family not necessarily based on gender.
We don't do any type of allowance or anything like that. It is all run on a united order principle within our family. So it is no one persons money, it is our money. Like i said it takes a lot of trust that one person would not take advantage of others, but if we are to be one family for eternity we should be able to act like one family here.
Online banking helps a heck of a lot if money needs to be moved around for any reason.
I don't know if this helps you at all, but it is what we have done. Thankfully we have never been rich, but not poor either. Everyone works hard and contributes what is their strength and that is not always money.
Your experience may differ dramatically from most.
Most people/couples/families these days are predominantly motivated by 'What's in it for me?!'.
Many times, that driving motivation is 'hidden' within the psyche of the individual in order to be attractive to others. In other words, people pretend with 'good' behaviour while subtlely manipulating situations to please themselves.
most relationships are merely a 'negotiation' of 'I'll give you this if you give me that'.
Which leads to the subject of the modern woman and money.
In these messed up modern times, women that generate revenue for the family 'generally' feel like they DESERVE what they make...of course to sate their petty, selfish desires. They want control over THEIR Money.
Sage, you , as I have stated before many times, are certainly 'sage' in your acumen and lifestyle. Most people in relationships are not mature enough to understand, let alone follow, the example that your family lives.
Well I don't know about most of the specific LDS views on finances, but I find your system neat. Very egalitarian. Online banking has made our finances *so* much better. First off, we're a single income family. It's important for us both to realize though that Glory staying home to educate the kids is a sacrifice, and so it is our income, not mine. We use a modified version of Dave Ramsey's envelope system, but with accounts. We've got multiple debit/checking accounts, and after a paycheck comes in it's set up to automatically send the budgeted amounts to each account.
-Bills (No one has a card for this, every bill is automatic)
-Fuel (There's a card in each car for this, money builds over time for oil changes etc.)
-Her Savings (equal amounts)
-Household (Grocery shopping, etc)
-School (Home school budget)
-Savings (for emergency fund and larger purchases)
It's not perfect, but it's worked far better for us than anything we've tried previously. I'm technically the budget person right now (we've both taken the reigns at times), but all that consists of is checking once a month to make sure everything is running smoothly (like recently the cable company changed our rate so I had to adjust that).
In a perfect world, when we add another wife, we'd like it to work pretty much the same. If she's not comfortable with that, then we'd have to see what bills she would take over with her income etc. But I'd really like the transparency of everyone getting equal amounts (myself included) and everything being a unified pool.
I thank all for their insight and effort to assist your comments and outpouring are touching and insightful thank you so much if there's anyone else who would like to comment please feel free
Live laugh and love
There are currently 0 users online.
Theme by ADCI solutions