-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Interesting Article
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
First thing we have to overcome is a built-in paradox, maybe a couple of such.
"Being on the forefront of an emerging cultural dialogue" is not too far removed from "volunteering to serve in the culture wars" when the counter-cultural position you're promoting is distasteful to some and disgusting to others. Standing up for a change in our understanding of morality is likely to put one's family in harm's way, and it is fundamental in this context that unless your family is very, very important to you, you are not going to succeed as a plural family. That makes the individual decision to stand up for this lifestyle a real dilemma.
On top of which, as much as we may feel the tide shifting over the past few years on TV and over the past few months with the Brown opinion, it hasn't fully shifted yet, so in most cases most of the time we are still seen as seriously weird. Compare that to the gay culture today, where every other day some actress or sports figure or somebody 'comes out' as gay, which is generally portrayed by the media as doing something noble, or even heroic. We are not even close to that kind of acceptance.
On top of which, as "Christian Polygamists", we're really fighting a two-front war. To the general culture, we're too orthodox/conservative, and to the mainstream religious culture, we're reprobates. It'd be a heck of a lot easier to just sell personal liberty to the secularized culture, but selling "this is okay with God" seems to offend the secular and the sacred.
On top of which, I think there are also some issues around supporting leadership for this 'movement', primarily due to some spectacular failures over the past coupla decades and the ongoing internal conflict between different factions that have different understandings of what we're trying to accomplish and what exactly the "Christian" part of "Christian polygamy" entails. Kinda reminds me of the Libertarian Party sometimes with all the bickering...
That's the bad news. The good news is that these are solvable problems if enough people want them solved.
"Being on the forefront of an emerging cultural dialogue" is not too far removed from "volunteering to serve in the culture wars" when the counter-cultural position you're promoting is distasteful to some and disgusting to others. Standing up for a change in our understanding of morality is likely to put one's family in harm's way, and it is fundamental in this context that unless your family is very, very important to you, you are not going to succeed as a plural family. That makes the individual decision to stand up for this lifestyle a real dilemma.
On top of which, as much as we may feel the tide shifting over the past few years on TV and over the past few months with the Brown opinion, it hasn't fully shifted yet, so in most cases most of the time we are still seen as seriously weird. Compare that to the gay culture today, where every other day some actress or sports figure or somebody 'comes out' as gay, which is generally portrayed by the media as doing something noble, or even heroic. We are not even close to that kind of acceptance.
On top of which, as "Christian Polygamists", we're really fighting a two-front war. To the general culture, we're too orthodox/conservative, and to the mainstream religious culture, we're reprobates. It'd be a heck of a lot easier to just sell personal liberty to the secularized culture, but selling "this is okay with God" seems to offend the secular and the sacred.
On top of which, I think there are also some issues around supporting leadership for this 'movement', primarily due to some spectacular failures over the past coupla decades and the ongoing internal conflict between different factions that have different understandings of what we're trying to accomplish and what exactly the "Christian" part of "Christian polygamy" entails. Kinda reminds me of the Libertarian Party sometimes with all the bickering...
That's the bad news. The good news is that these are solvable problems if enough people want them solved.
The homosexual group got very organized, purposeful and strategic. Suggest watching "how to survive a plague" on Netflix.
We need to do this IMHO.
Agreed this isn't pleasant work. No support from anyone, except maybe the homosexual or polyamory groups but only if we don't mention the Bible.
Hard to have enemies on every side.
We need to do this IMHO.
Agreed this isn't pleasant work. No support from anyone, except maybe the homosexual or polyamory groups but only if we don't mention the Bible.
Hard to have enemies on every side.
Flick looks very interesting. Should have it watched in the next couple of days.
NB: Gay men with HIV have "nothing to lose". Christian poly men with large families have "everything to lose". Big difference.
Somewhere (I want to say it was reading Heinlein) I ran across the idea that a kind of berserker troop made up of all homosexuals would be the fiercest warriors of all (however much that messes with our understanding of "manliness" or "machismo"). The idea of the Unsullied in Game of Thrones hits the same target if not the bull's eye. The common theme is that men with children (that care deeply about their children...) are making real, present sacrifices in the lives of people they care very deeply about that are hard to cost/benefit against abstract ideas about "the greater good" and estimates of risk/reward based on how ready we think the culture is to accept polygamists.
Not trying to be depressing, just realistic. I agree that if we're going to make a difference, or even get heard, let alone "be at the forefront" of anything, we're going to have to get "organized, purposeful, and strategic". Now, what does that look like?...
I want to clarify that I do not intend to step on any toes and I do not claim to speak for BF in this matter. "The views expressed here do not express those of the management." My understanding is that BF is and will continue to be a safe place for people coming into their own understanding of "biblical families" to learn, grow, and be encouraged. A lighthouse in the storm, so to speak. The very idea of principled activism is NOT safe, and I see it is a different undertaking.
NB: Gay men with HIV have "nothing to lose". Christian poly men with large families have "everything to lose". Big difference.
Somewhere (I want to say it was reading Heinlein) I ran across the idea that a kind of berserker troop made up of all homosexuals would be the fiercest warriors of all (however much that messes with our understanding of "manliness" or "machismo"). The idea of the Unsullied in Game of Thrones hits the same target if not the bull's eye. The common theme is that men with children (that care deeply about their children...) are making real, present sacrifices in the lives of people they care very deeply about that are hard to cost/benefit against abstract ideas about "the greater good" and estimates of risk/reward based on how ready we think the culture is to accept polygamists.
Not trying to be depressing, just realistic. I agree that if we're going to make a difference, or even get heard, let alone "be at the forefront" of anything, we're going to have to get "organized, purposeful, and strategic". Now, what does that look like?...
I want to clarify that I do not intend to step on any toes and I do not claim to speak for BF in this matter. "The views expressed here do not express those of the management." My understanding is that BF is and will continue to be a safe place for people coming into their own understanding of "biblical families" to learn, grow, and be encouraged. A lighthouse in the storm, so to speak. The very idea of principled activism is NOT safe, and I see it is a different undertaking.
The answers to your three questions are yes, trick question, and yes.
This is supposed to be a democratic republic, and as long as it's even a pseudo-democracy I'd say we have a responsibility as Christians to stand up for the truth. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." "Don't hide your light under a bushel." I could go on, but it'd be "objection, cumulative". Both politically and spiritually, we are called to act.
I'm not sure what you mean by mainstream; we have different responsibilities to the church and to the broader culture. Either way, though it is an act of compassion to work to free people from cultural norms that are unbiblical that destroy individuals and families. Jesus had no problem confronting the church police of his day, and Paul worked his *ss off (until he, too, got himself killed) to promote the truth of God across the Roman world. I want to stand with those guys.
I do not understand the concept behind pushing loneliness and self-sufficiency as the way of the Christian—it seems to me to fly in the face of most of the New Testament's teaching re the body of Christ and the care and concern we should have for each other (all the "one anothers"...) and reaching out to a lost and dying world. If we haven't yet experienced real biblical fellowship, we need to try harder; we should not give up or reconcile ourselves to the idea that a lonely, miserable journey is the norm. If we aren't called to help people in hurting marriages or that are single and lonely, who are we called to help?
Being "appreciated by the world" is not even on my list of concerns, not even in last place. It just doesn't register. I'm guessing you meant something else.
What I want from the secular government is to decriminalize bigamy and give me the liberty that our American mythology says is my birthright. I want to be able to show off the women in my life, not hide them from the world. And I want those women to be able to circulate in the culture as married women, without shame and without fear. The only appreciation I'm concerned about comes from God, my women, and my children.
The idea of building a community for those who come looking is what BF is all about, and I expect will remain the core mission of BF. Again, I'm not looking for acceptance from the world, either, any more than appreciation. I'm just looking for decriminalization and liberty from them.
The Great Commission was a specific charge to a specific group of men that to the best of my knowledge were all executed for their faith save John. Throughout history service to God has often if not always involved risk and sacrifice on the part of families.
For those living polygamously, our families are already in harm's way. The question is whether we're willing to do anything about it.
This is supposed to be a democratic republic, and as long as it's even a pseudo-democracy I'd say we have a responsibility as Christians to stand up for the truth. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." "Don't hide your light under a bushel." I could go on, but it'd be "objection, cumulative". Both politically and spiritually, we are called to act.
I'm not sure what you mean by mainstream; we have different responsibilities to the church and to the broader culture. Either way, though it is an act of compassion to work to free people from cultural norms that are unbiblical that destroy individuals and families. Jesus had no problem confronting the church police of his day, and Paul worked his *ss off (until he, too, got himself killed) to promote the truth of God across the Roman world. I want to stand with those guys.
I do not understand the concept behind pushing loneliness and self-sufficiency as the way of the Christian—it seems to me to fly in the face of most of the New Testament's teaching re the body of Christ and the care and concern we should have for each other (all the "one anothers"...) and reaching out to a lost and dying world. If we haven't yet experienced real biblical fellowship, we need to try harder; we should not give up or reconcile ourselves to the idea that a lonely, miserable journey is the norm. If we aren't called to help people in hurting marriages or that are single and lonely, who are we called to help?
Being "appreciated by the world" is not even on my list of concerns, not even in last place. It just doesn't register. I'm guessing you meant something else.
What I want from the secular government is to decriminalize bigamy and give me the liberty that our American mythology says is my birthright. I want to be able to show off the women in my life, not hide them from the world. And I want those women to be able to circulate in the culture as married women, without shame and without fear. The only appreciation I'm concerned about comes from God, my women, and my children.
The idea of building a community for those who come looking is what BF is all about, and I expect will remain the core mission of BF. Again, I'm not looking for acceptance from the world, either, any more than appreciation. I'm just looking for decriminalization and liberty from them.
The Great Commission was a specific charge to a specific group of men that to the best of my knowledge were all executed for their faith save John. Throughout history service to God has often if not always involved risk and sacrifice on the part of families.
For those living polygamously, our families are already in harm's way. The question is whether we're willing to do anything about it.
Agree with Andrew that our approach to the wider world and to the Christian community are two separate issues.
In the wider world, we must simply push for liberty. Achieving true liberty will mean also allowing things in society that we disagree with - but that's what liberty is about, letting everyone do what they believe is best provided they're not hurting anyone else. That's a message the secular world can agree with if put together. And if truly implemented that would give us the freedom to live in society without fear of legal problems. Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been twisted to mean "central government control of everything but you can sleep with whoever you like so you think you're free", cunning Orwellian newspeak that makes life more difficult when you wish to promote true liberty, because people can get completely the wrong idea of what you mean. But true liberty / libertarianism / classical liberalism (whatever you want to call it) is what we should focus our efforts on in wider society in my opinion, the benefits go far beyond polygamy.
We'll never persuade a secular world that religious patriarchal polygamy is a good idea. But we might persuade them that freedom is a good idea, and some people may use that freedom to enter into religious patriarchal polygamy.
In the Christian community we do need to stand up for truth, for the sake of other Christians. There are so many Christians who end up in situations which are made so much worse through a faulty understanding of marriage. For instance a married man who falls in love with another woman and has an affair - the church tells him to leave her and go back to his wife, the secular world tells him to follow his heart and leave his wife for the woman he thinks he "loves", but the BIBLE tells him he has obligations to both. This is a very important message for some people. Also missionaries going to countries where polygamy is common need to understand this, otherwise they end up causing people to sin through divorce.
Polygamy isn't a salvation matter, and it is completely irrelevant to the lives of many people. Our primary purpose on this earth is to teach others about Christ. However this is a secondary issue that is directly relevant to the lives of a few, so we need to spread an understanding of it around the place so that people for whom it is relevant get wind of the idea and look into it further.
In the wider world, we must simply push for liberty. Achieving true liberty will mean also allowing things in society that we disagree with - but that's what liberty is about, letting everyone do what they believe is best provided they're not hurting anyone else. That's a message the secular world can agree with if put together. And if truly implemented that would give us the freedom to live in society without fear of legal problems. Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been twisted to mean "central government control of everything but you can sleep with whoever you like so you think you're free", cunning Orwellian newspeak that makes life more difficult when you wish to promote true liberty, because people can get completely the wrong idea of what you mean. But true liberty / libertarianism / classical liberalism (whatever you want to call it) is what we should focus our efforts on in wider society in my opinion, the benefits go far beyond polygamy.
We'll never persuade a secular world that religious patriarchal polygamy is a good idea. But we might persuade them that freedom is a good idea, and some people may use that freedom to enter into religious patriarchal polygamy.
In the Christian community we do need to stand up for truth, for the sake of other Christians. There are so many Christians who end up in situations which are made so much worse through a faulty understanding of marriage. For instance a married man who falls in love with another woman and has an affair - the church tells him to leave her and go back to his wife, the secular world tells him to follow his heart and leave his wife for the woman he thinks he "loves", but the BIBLE tells him he has obligations to both. This is a very important message for some people. Also missionaries going to countries where polygamy is common need to understand this, otherwise they end up causing people to sin through divorce.
Polygamy isn't a salvation matter, and it is completely irrelevant to the lives of many people. Our primary purpose on this earth is to teach others about Christ. However this is a secondary issue that is directly relevant to the lives of a few, so we need to spread an understanding of it around the place so that people for whom it is relevant get wind of the idea and look into it further.
pebble
Member
andrew said:
Theban 100 or Sacred band of Thebes. ==> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
andrew said:
Although being safe is, ultimately, not the primary concern of a believer, shouldn't our agenda be only one? God's?
cwcsmc said:
Have not learned much yet but that seems to be the general idea.
cwcsmc said:
The first sentence is supposedly the reason why we are doing what we are doing despite what nearly the whole world says about us. As for the second sentence... I've read this recently and might have some bearing on it... http://www.be-ready.org/suffering.html
andrew said:
It is not a choice. It is what happens when we stand for something that is anathema to popular opinion. I can relate to this at this particular moment in my life. In a city of 500k, I feel alone. I've sent feelers to a Christian guy just to see how poly stands with him, he thought I was talking about taking a mistress and said he might try it some time. It would be nice to discuss my faith and beliefs face to face with somebody who shares them.
IMHO, it's not about pushing loneliness but being prepared for it. Loneliness and rejection can really shake one's faith. Loneliness is harder to bear.
Very nice discussion, sirs. Thanks to all.
Samuel: Agree 100%
Pebble: Couple of thoughts.
Note for the record: I do not believe that all sincere Christians will have the same agenda if they are all hearing from God. Different members of the body have different roles, purposes, and functions. To the extent this is becoming a "let's debate what all of us should or should not be doing" kind of discussion, we have lost the thread. I could be hearing God call me to rise up and you could be hearing God telling you to keep your head down, or vice versa.
So if that was unclear above, let me clarify here: When I said "we should be on the forefront", I didn't mean "this entire group should be engaging the culture in ways that could bring persecution to their families". I took for granted that whatever "we" think about being "organized, purposeful, and strategic" (thanks, JAG!), that meant "united in purpose" but there would still be a division of labor and deployment of resources within the body that gives traction to the idea that we are "one body with many members".
Does that help any? We're, or at least I'm, not trying to figure out a "one size fits all" answer to JAG's original question. There's room here for each of us to be hearing different things about our individual roles in the culture wars. The bigger question is, In the emerging debate re polygamy, will Christian polygamists have a voice? There's going to be a debate whether we engage or not; why would we sit on the sidelines on something that's supposed to be important to us?
Pebble: Couple of thoughts.
Thanks for that. More info on the idea and a different spin on the possible motivations involved.pebble said:
I'm missing something here, but let's assume for the sake of argument that we all want to do God's will and be on his agenda. Now what are you saying about how that relates to evaluating safety and risk?pebble said:
Note for the record: I do not believe that all sincere Christians will have the same agenda if they are all hearing from God. Different members of the body have different roles, purposes, and functions. To the extent this is becoming a "let's debate what all of us should or should not be doing" kind of discussion, we have lost the thread. I could be hearing God call me to rise up and you could be hearing God telling you to keep your head down, or vice versa.
So if that was unclear above, let me clarify here: When I said "we should be on the forefront", I didn't mean "this entire group should be engaging the culture in ways that could bring persecution to their families". I took for granted that whatever "we" think about being "organized, purposeful, and strategic" (thanks, JAG!), that meant "united in purpose" but there would still be a division of labor and deployment of resources within the body that gives traction to the idea that we are "one body with many members".
Does that help any? We're, or at least I'm, not trying to figure out a "one size fits all" answer to JAG's original question. There's room here for each of us to be hearing different things about our individual roles in the culture wars. The bigger question is, In the emerging debate re polygamy, will Christian polygamists have a voice? There's going to be a debate whether we engage or not; why would we sit on the sidelines on something that's supposed to be important to us?
Disagree 100%. The Christian walk is one of love, joy, peace, etc., freedom, and victory. I'm not making an accusation or a judgment, just an observation, and maybe it's just me, but this is sounding to me like borderline self-pity.pebble said:Have not learned much yet but that seems to be the general idea.cwcsmc said:
I disagree completely because to me this is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The argument is that because the Christian life is supposed to be lonely and difficult (and miserable, and defeated), we should not engage the culture with biblical truth. I would say to the extent there is any loneliness or suffering, it should be because we took a stand, not a reason NOT to take a stand.pebble said:
Looks like we were both typing at the same time!
I think part of what's trying to happen here, though, is some kind of assessment of the situation, or intelligent preparation of the battlefield. We can guess about how late it is, or we can get a revelation from God, or we can do our homework. My original assertion (what a troublemaker...), is that the culture is starting a dialogue without us, and we should not only jump in, we should lead. JAG's question was "what would it take?", and I gave some thoughts on that.
Instead of prejudging this as a lost cause, let's play the believing game. Assume for the sake of argument this is a solvable problem—now, what's it gonna take? Maybe we do the homework and then decide it's a war we can't win. Or maybe we do the homework and think we have a shot. Or maybe we decide to run some trials and then assess further.
I have a way of looking at things that may be unique with me, but I don't think it's supposed to be. I haven't felt lonely in decades. I have had to make hard decisions in the face of opposition and take sole responsibility for the outcome, but I don't experience that as loneliness.
Finally, worshiping with the BF group in January was an experience in "true fellowship" that will never be forgotten. We have led worship in churches that didn't know the full details of our situation (don't ask, don't tell), and we have led worship in groups where our situation is known, but we're still the weirdos in the room. Worshiping with a group of people that were like us, that knew who we were and didn't think it was weird, that we could be completely ourselves in front of and be accepted and appreciated, was awesome. We're hooked. I am committed to the body of Christ to make more fellowship like that happen on a regular basis to complement what BF does through the retreats and cyber-networking.
That's just not the issue here. I don't need the world's whatever endorsement of my life. I need this state and this country to walk its talk and give me the political freedom to live my own life with or without their respect, appreciation, or acceptance. In fact, it's not really "freedom" if it's just "freedom to do what the majority approves of"; the only meaningful freedom is "freedom to do what the majority doesn't approve of". Short of harm to others (through active malfeasance or breaking our agreements), we should be free to do as we please. That's what I want from the world.
Cool parable that undoubtedly has application at some times to some kinds of decisions. In fact, I can use that in my own life today with a decision I'm mulling over. However....cwcsmc said:
That's "two many" maybes for my taste. As long as we're speculating, maybe it's not too late, and maybe it's time for us all to step up before it really is too late.cwcsmc said:
I think part of what's trying to happen here, though, is some kind of assessment of the situation, or intelligent preparation of the battlefield. We can guess about how late it is, or we can get a revelation from God, or we can do our homework. My original assertion (what a troublemaker...), is that the culture is starting a dialogue without us, and we should not only jump in, we should lead. JAG's question was "what would it take?", and I gave some thoughts on that.
Instead of prejudging this as a lost cause, let's play the believing game. Assume for the sake of argument this is a solvable problem—now, what's it gonna take? Maybe we do the homework and then decide it's a war we can't win. Or maybe we do the homework and think we have a shot. Or maybe we decide to run some trials and then assess further.
I figured but wanted to be sure.cwcsmc said:
Moses and Jesus were called to bring something new and unique into the world. Can't really compare anything I'm doing to that. Martin Luther, maybe, would be closer to home, in terms of a model. Someone who's willing to challenge the wrongness of the culture and take a stand at great peril.cwcsmc said:
I have a way of looking at things that may be unique with me, but I don't think it's supposed to be. I haven't felt lonely in decades. I have had to make hard decisions in the face of opposition and take sole responsibility for the outcome, but I don't experience that as loneliness.
Finally, worshiping with the BF group in January was an experience in "true fellowship" that will never be forgotten. We have led worship in churches that didn't know the full details of our situation (don't ask, don't tell), and we have led worship in groups where our situation is known, but we're still the weirdos in the room. Worshiping with a group of people that were like us, that knew who we were and didn't think it was weird, that we could be completely ourselves in front of and be accepted and appreciated,
was awesome. We're hooked. I am committed to the body of Christ to make more fellowship like that happen on a regular basis to complement what BF does through the retreats and cyber-networking.I guess whatever you call it, I'm wondering why you've got this set up the way you do. Your original question assumed we all want to be accepted/appreciated/recognized/respected by the world, and then asks the rhetorical question whether that is ever really going to happen. Well of course it's not; the entire NT testifies that it's never going to happen.cwcsmc said:
That's just not the issue here. I don't need the world's whatever endorsement of my life. I need this state and this country to walk its talk and give me the political freedom to live my own life with or without their respect, appreciation, or acceptance. In fact, it's not really "freedom" if it's just "freedom to do what the majority approves of"; the only meaningful freedom is "freedom to do what the majority doesn't approve of". Short of harm to others (through active malfeasance or breaking our agreements), we should be free to do as we please. That's what I want from the world.
Looks like we're cross-posting. (I had to take a phone call that slowed down my response. I didn't see this post of yours until after I submitted my most recent post.)cwcsmc said:
If you want to talk details, we can communicate further via PM or email. In general terms, though, I would suggest that you may need to review (and be prepared to revise) your expectations. I think I've already spoken to this in the previous post, but let me know if you disagree.
Either way, I'd like to try to reset this thread.
You posted an "interesting article" that is another piece of evidence in support of the argument that our culture is undergoing a massive upheaval in the way it thinks about marriage.
I proferred my opinion that "we", meaning Christian polygamists, should definitely have a voice in the dialogue that is emerging (with or without us).
JAG agreed and asked for a plan.
I immediately went into SWOT mode and started listing what I perceive as the weaknesses and threats we'll have to address to be effective. We have strengths, too, and the opportunity is self-evident, but I figured we'd start with a little practical problem-solving.
So far it looks like JAG and Samuel and I are more or less on the same page, you have some reservations, and maybe pebble does too.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? <tap, tap> Is this mic working?...
I'm not saying those of us that are already here shouldn't keep talking; I'm sure we will. I'm just noticing that there hasn't been a ton of response to this thread and wondering why that is. It seems to me that this has extreme practical importance for all of us and there's a window of opportunity that won't be open indefinitely, but maybe that's just me....
YAHTZEE!!
That sort of snuck up on me, but yes, BF and the people I met in January give me hope that it's not too late! The Brown opinion in December and the quality of the people I met in January were the one-two punch to the head of validation for the stirrings I started feeling back in November or maybe October (I think Nathan and I started talking in earnest about my coming to the retreat in November, but I had been thinking about BF for awhile before then.) Things that have happened since then corroborate the main message, but the retreat was the definitive turning point.
I sincerely hope that you will make it to TN. The January retreat was a game-changer for us; the July one could be a game-changer for you.
That sort of snuck up on me, but yes, BF and the people I met in January give me hope that it's not too late! The Brown opinion in December and the quality of the people I met in January were the one-two punch to the head of validation for the stirrings I started feeling back in November or maybe October (I think Nathan and I started talking in earnest about my coming to the retreat in November, but I had been thinking about BF for awhile before then.) Things that have happened since then corroborate the main message, but the retreat was the definitive turning point.
I sincerely hope that you will make it to TN. The January retreat was a game-changer for us; the July one could be a game-changer for you.
Love you too!cwcsmc said:This may be one of those issues were brothers disagree. I have my life and you have yours, God has arranged them differently. However, if there is something you can offer to let me see another light I am all for it. But, until then all I can say is, love ya man.
And maybe we don't even need to disagree, we've just had different experiences that inform different perspectives. I can't argue with yours and you can't argue with mine. I'm cool with that.Wait, does that mean I'm disagreeing with you about whether we disagree??... :roll:
I like the way you think!cwcsmc said:
Is there a cliff's notes version to the above? Just kidding
Glad you saw the documentary. Pretty amazing to realize you're going to die before a cure is found but continue to labor and strategize anyway. The movie helped me see in a new light these people the Church often ostracizes.
Glad you saw the documentary. Pretty amazing to realize you're going to die before a cure is found but continue to labor and strategize anyway. The movie helped me see in a new light these people the Church often ostracizes.