Daniel Peterson wrote:I wouldn't lose any sleep over this. The world to come will be more glorious and wonderful for the faithful than they can possibly comprehend, and nothing will be forced upon them. But they will also, surely, find their perspectives dramatically altered.
Morrissey wrote:To paraphrase you, and you know this how?
For someone who consistently rags on others for unsubstantiated claims, you make a number of absolute whoppers yourself.
Daniel Peterson wrote:In writing to Liz, I appealed to a belief that, I presume, she and I share. I paraphrased a statement that appears several times in the canonical scriptures that, I assume, she accepts.
Regardless of its source and who agrees with it, it is a rather fantastic claim. You deride other arguments shared by others with comments like "and how do you know this," so I assume what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
You dish it out with relish, why act so peevishly when you get it back in return?
Morrissey wrote:So tell me, once our perspectives are dramatically altered, will we come to see the wonder in treating women like property?
Daniel Peterson wrote:If you treat women like property, I'm sorry for the women you know.
I don't have any reason to think you do. Quite the opposite in fact. However, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Orson Pratt, Parley Pratt, etc., etc. DID treat women like property, and they organized and ruled over a system that treated women like property.
Now today you are apologizing for this system and the way in which it demeaned, objectified, and dehumanized women.
And you continue to apologize for LDS Inc.'s ongoing marginalization of women.
The respect with which you treat the women in your life is at odds with how you defend so vigorously others who treat women with such a distinct lack of respect.
Why is that? I conclude that your blind devotion to LDS Inc. has warped your otherwise fine moral sensibilities on this issue. Or is there some other reason you come to the defense of a system that demeans and dehumanizes women?
Morrissey wrote:No Dan I am commenting on your incredible lack of insight (or your incredible need to apologize on behalf of LDS Inc)
Daniel Peterson wrote:Contemptuous sneering duly noted.
Again, good for the goose and all that.
Morrissey wrote:that you question whether polygamy, as practiced by 19th century Mormonism, had a great deal to do with power and control
Daniel Peterson wrote:Then you should have formulated your question and your response in the more careful way that, having overdosed on exaggerated rhetoric during your first attempt, you're trying to adopt now.
My rhetoric was in direct proportion to the quick and contemptuous dismissal you granted Harmony, along with the ludicrous implication therein that power and control were not important factors in Mormonism's practice of polygamy. A point of such obvious self-evidence that it would take the most determined apologist to ignore it.
Morrissey wrote:a self-evident conclusion viz not only Mormonism but other religions (cults) who have adopted this abhorrent practice.
It was not all about power and control--certainly it was a lot about Joseph wanting poontang in abundance, plus other things as well. But power and control were at the center of it.
Daniel Peterson wrote:In historical explanation, empirical evidence and its analysis are what counts. Words like self-evident and certainly often (as here) represent nothing more than attempts to sway the reader by means of false bravado in the absence of data -- or, alternatively, to appeal to the prejudices of an audience. They have more to do with propaganda than with rational discourse.
Baloney. Power and control were (are) self-evident factors in fundamentalist religious practice of polygamy. It's not false bravado, it is truth.
Nothing at all like the false bravado expressed by those (you included) who pretend to know the mind and will of an all-powerful, all-knowing being, as well as those who pretend to know with any kind of certainty what will happen in the hereafter (if there is one).
If I'm guilty of false bravado it pales in comparison to that of the faithful Mormons who claim intimate sure knowledge of things they couldn't possibly know about.
Morrissey wrote:That you'd even question this shows the state of self-delusion under which you are laboring.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Personal insult duly noted. Failure to genuflect before Morrissey's views requires Morrissey to view the dissident with vocal personal contempt.
No Dan. I am willing to concede where my views might be mistaken. See the recent exchange on the James Strang.
Again, for someone who routinely vocalizes personal contempt for people on this board and elsewhere (indeed, it forms a core part of your argumentation style), you'll forgive me if I conclude you lack the moral authority to lecture others on this point.