It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:34 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:21 pm 
Paul Osborne wrote:
Quote:
I don't dislike anyone just because they offend me, Paul. They have to have done something really bad for me to dislike them.


Ok, Harmony. I'll take you at your word. Surely, you don't dislike me!

But I got to say, I sure like my balls! Their fun to play with!

:razz:

Paul O


Paul...you're impossible to dislike. You're a doll.

But based on your last remark...you definitely need to go to bed. LOL

So do I.

'Night, all!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:27 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6194
Location: in the dog house
liz3564 wrote:
Putting this into a gospel perspective, do you think that a "natural" abhorrence to polygamy is an example of something that we struggle against as part of "the natural man"?

Again, I'm just confused about why God would put such a huge obstacle in the way of something that He supposedly finds so primarily important for all of us to partake in as part of our ultimate exaltation....if that is, indeed the case.

I honestly don't know. I don't think our natural abhorrence of polygamy is necessarily a bad thing. Then again, neither is physical attraction.

I sometimes try to view the whole earth as just a big family where we're all literally brothers and sisters. Yet romantic love is different. I'm fine with my wife giving her brother a hug because it's not romantic even if it is loving.

I then think about the nature of love in general and wonder whether romantic love is truly the highest, or whether the love of God is supreme. I think the latter should be and yet somehow I don't quite believe it. They are different to be sure and serve a different purpose. What I mean though is that I seem to feel that romantic love is best even though my faith tells me that God's love should be best. So if we all have God's love and don't feel sibling rivalry about God, what does that mean about me? About the different kinds of love? I don't know. Perhaps when one knows that one has finally reached ultimate exaltation. I would hope that sometime in the afterlife I will have sufficiently overcome any conditions of the flesh (be it a temptation, or instinct, good or ill) such that it is more easy to discover the answer.

Another thing it makes me consider is that I probably should carefully work on my own perspective and consider the needs of other's children even though I believe that I should focus on my own.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6194
Location: in the dog house
harmony wrote:
Equality is where it's at. All or nothing.

I dislike them and accept them equally. If God commands it the other way around, so be it. I hope not, but I would accept it in the same way I would accept polygyny.

I think both are inherently problematic but not inherently immoral. I also think each has its own unique set of problems, but that ultimately neither one is preferable to the other. Monogamy also has some difficulties, but given our natures it is the most manageable and desirable option.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:04 am 
Joey wrote:



Just one that is rational! And I'm not looking for a fight!

My point is that there is no "Rational" argument or defense for mormon polygamy! Hell, even the Lds Church runs from it today as fast as they can.


You seem to be confusing something, a rational argument from the perspective of J. Smith and early mormon leaders and what they thought would benefit the church, does not entail being a defense for polygamy.
Quote:
For Marg:

If you make claims - back them up. Otherwise your arguments are about as irrational as polygamy!!


My not doing the search for you, though I have done it for myself does not entail my argument being irrational. All it entails is that I can't be bothered doing a search for you. If you were interested you'd do it yourself. I don't particularly care whether you are interested or not or whether you believe me or not. BTW, I've also read the early Christian church was predominantly females...and no I'm not going to back that up for you either.

A question occurred to me today which illustrates a major difference in attitude between sexes. How many men would allow themselves to be put into subservient, position of being one spouse of many to one woman? Think about that, women allow it done to them, but men wouldn't put up with it.

Edit: Here joey go to page 190, I'd copy but it's a pdf file more women join cults and religious groups than men


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:09 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
truth dancer wrote:
Quote:
the LDS church is a perfect example of male privilege.


Dan wrote:

Quote:
Scarcely!



From Wiki:

Quote:
Male privilege is a term used to describe the idea that there are unearned and un-asked for rights and statuses granted to the male population in society on the basis of their biological sex that the female population is usually denied.


The LDS church gives power, privilege, authority, and rights to men not afforded women.

And, of course the LDS church is not the only organization that embraces male privilege, just one of many.

Again, requiring women to follow their husbands, while men are required to follow Christ pretty much sums up the dynamics in the LDS church.

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:48 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
Just to throw another thought into the mix... :razz:

I consider polygamy similarly to how I view slavery.

It seems to me that a more enlightened consciousness entered into the human at some point where the realization that owning other humans was hurtful (some would say immoral). The awareness came to some people perhaps subconsciously or intuitively, while others resisted it and were "forced" to accept it. Nevertheless, the end of slavery was a development of humankind. (I think it is an example of how the universe continually brings forth something new as it expands and unfolds).

Releasing slavery from the minds and hearts of humans moved us toward a more civilized, more caring, more "holy" way of life.

Similarly, the animalistic practice of males spreading their sperm with every available female, owning women, and objectifying and using women is, IMO a behavior that is more primitive, certainly more hurtful than a view of equality, respect, and concern for women.

I see the beauty, intimacy, and depth of love and care that is available in a healthy monogamous relationship completely absent in polygamy.

As I have said before, polygamy doesn't deepen relationships; it doesn't expand love; it doesn't further the enlightenment and holiness of humankind. It thwarts it by turning women into breeding machines; men into animals. Polygyny (to be specific) takes human evolution back into a time when our consciousness had yet to develop a sense of equality, care, concern; it takes us back to a time prior to an awareness that women are human beings; it is a regression from the development of compassion and intimacy.

Sure, polygamous men may say they love their wives but love is more than saying the words; and emotional intimacy is something different than an assertion of care. Further, brotherly/sisterly love or the love of a parent for children is NOT the same as a soul mate type of love available to a couple whose lives are shared in their depth as they enter into an exclusive relationship.

There is a reason Jesus Christ taught that a man and woman should cleave unto each other and no other; IMO it is because it is in this exclusive relationship where the depths of the human soul can be realized and where the beauty of emotional intimacy can transform the heart and soul.

Last point for this post... :-)

Again, I go back to God. It is one thing to acknowledge that there are men who are obsessed with screwing girls and women; who enjoy the power and glory of having an eternal harem; who are addicted to the desire for using women for their purpose.

Quite another thing to put this onto God. If God is totally obsessed with the sex lives of LDS married men, demanding they screw multiple girls and women, absorbed in the need for certain sperm to fertilize various eggs, and hand picking girls and already married women for these men to screw, well, all I can say is I don't want to be with God. Not even for one minute.

~td~

_________________
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:33 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
DCP:
Quote:
I hadn't really understood it before tonight, harmony, but I'm beginning to see that you genuinely dislike men.

I actually disagree somewhat with this conclusion.

I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.

Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 3382
William Schryver wrote:
DCP:
Quote:
I hadn't really understood it before tonight, harmony, but I'm beginning to see that you genuinely dislike men.

I actually disagree somewhat with this conclusion.

I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.

Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.


I've heard Rush Limbaugh say this a couple hundred times.

_________________
"The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." - Boyd K. Packer

"Religion is like a penis. Its fine to have one, its fine to be proud of it; But please refrain from whipping it out in public and shoving it down people's throats." - Anonymous


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:48 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18169
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
DarkHelmet wrote:
William Schryver wrote:
I actually disagree somewhat with this conclusion.

I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.

Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.


I've heard Rush Limbaugh say this a couple hundred times.


Where do you think he gets this garbage? You didn't think he thought it up on his own, did you?

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:53 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:34 pm
Posts: 717
Peterson wrote:
What did the Church gain from polygamy? Here's something that, I think, is pretty much beyond dispute: Polygamy increased the social distance between Church members and non-members, and helped to forge a distinctive LDS identity that makes it almost more ethnic than denominational.


Again, all Millets aside here, the Lds church increased social distance via Hauns Mill & Lillburn Boggs, Kirtland Bank, Nauvoo Militia, worthiness discrimination against blacks based on divine authority, ERA, excluding loved ones from wedding ceremonies based on perceived "worthiness", MMM and other positions and actions. This would have happened with or without polygamy.

And I hardly believe that the Lds church would use "social distancing" as a rational argument for polygamy. I do, however, understand why you would here.

Quote:
By contrast, the RLDS Church has had a difficult time maintaining its separation from Protestantism, and, in fact, appears to be slipping back into the liberal Protestant fold. I'm not saying that this was a purpose of polygamy, but I do think that it was definitely one of polygamy's effects.


I seriously doubt this, if in fact true, has anything to do with polygamy. A more rational explanation would probably have to do with their acceptance and growing reality over the origins of the Book of Mormon .

_________________
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:56 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18169
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
I actually disagree somewhat with this conclusion.

I think the real problem is that harmony dislikes women, or rather, being a woman. She resents the fact (as she sees it) that she was born into an inferior (as she sees it) role, body, status, etc.


No, I resent the fact that my church leaders see me as inferior and that I am only a worthwhile person because I am a mother. The good ol' boys club at the top is half a century behind on this issue also.

Quote:
Of course, she's really not that uncommon in this respect. Modern feminism has now produced at least three generations littered with self-loathing women. It's one of the great tragedies of our times, if you ask me.


You're wrong too, Will (so surprising!) I enjoy being female. What I don't enjoy is men who tell me what I have to do, as a female, in order to be acceptable to God... especially when what God tells me is the opposite.

I'm sure you won't understand or grasp the nuances of that statement, Will. Grasping nuances isn't your strongest attribute..

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
dissonance:
Quote:
Where do you think he gets this garbage? You didn't think he thought it up on his own, did you?

I've never listened to Rush Limbaugh, or any other such commentators on either side of the political divide.

But I am certain to have correctly diagnosed your problem. You truly are suffering from dissonance: you have gender-identification issues, and you are tormented by what you regard as the essential powerlessness of your femininity.

It's quite a common malady, you know. And there are, I believe, good treatment regimens available. Perhaps you should look into it.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:15 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18169
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
William Schryver wrote:
But I am certain to have correctly diagnosed your problem.


Male hubris doesn't automatically equate to correctness, Will. No doubt at some point in your life you will learn this. But not today. Definitely not today.

Quote:
You truly are suffering from dissonance: you have gender-identification issues, and you are tormented by what you regard as the essential powerlessness of your femininity.


To quote Daniel: you don't know me, you know nothing about me. Cease with your foolish claims.

What power I have in my spiritual life comes straight from God. I don't seek power from the church, because the church chooses to seek no authority by which they can bestow it. What I seek from the church is equality and respect. I suspect they will never grasp that concept in my lifetime, because the men in charge have no frame of reference for it. I hold out hope for the next generation, but it will come too late for me.

Amazingly enough, I have no problems in the job arena at all. Probably because promotions are based on performance not gender, and respect for women as valued employees is rampant in my agency. Without us, we don't raise the millions of dollars a year that we need.

The Brethren could learn a great deal from them.

Quote:
It's quite a common malady, you know. And there are, I believe, good treatment regimens available. Perhaps you should look into it.


What I suffer from is a lack of respect for an unproven yet claimed priesthood authority, especially since no one can actually show me the canonized revelation that restored the higher priesthood. Where authority is not granted, there is none. And I don't grant any.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:52 am 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
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.


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.

So tell me, once our perspectives are dramatically altered, will we come to see the wonder in treating women like property?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:01 am 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
Daniel Peterson wrote:
And you know all this . . . how, exactly?

Morrissey wrote:
Gee Dan, good point. Power and control had nothing to do with it.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Gee, Morrissey. Excellent cultural, theological, and historical analysis. Your evidence overwhelms me. Your commitment to empiricism overcomes any reservations I might have had. Your impeccable logic [Harmony: "All X are Y." Evil Peterson: "Do you have any evidence that all X are Y?" Morrisey: "Oh right. So no X are Y?"] leaves me without any excuse for my failure to genuflect.

:lol:


No Dan I am commenting on your incredible lack of insight (or your incredible need to apologize on behalf of LDS Inc) that you question whether polygamy, as practiced by 19th century Mormonism, had a great deal to do with power and control--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.

That you'd even question this shows the state of self-delusion under which you are laboring.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:43 am 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
truth dancer wrote:
Again, requiring women to follow their husbands, while men are required to follow Christ pretty much sums up the dynamics in the LDS church.

Sure it does.

If you're looking for a hyper-simplistic single-issue bumper sticker slogan.

Joey wrote:
And I hardly believe that the Lds church would use "social distancing" as a rational argument for polygamy. I do, however, understand why you would here.

The Church hasn't used social distancing as an argument for plural marriage, and neither have I.

I simply described one of the unmistakable effects of plural marriage.

harmony wrote:
What I suffer from is a lack of respect for an unproven yet claimed priesthood authority, especially since no one can actually show me the canonized revelation that restored the higher priesthood. Where authority is not granted, there is none. And I don't grant any.

Which is, of course, your right, and which is one of the reasons why, in my judgment, in very significant and fundamental ways, you're not a Mormon.

Morrissey wrote:
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.
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.

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.

When harmony makes strikingly harsh claims about secular history, anthropology, and sociology that can be empirically checked in this world by ordinary means, I expect her to provide at least a smidgin of supporting evidence.

Morrissey wrote:
So tell me, once our perspectives are dramatically altered, will we come to see the wonder in treating women like property?

If you treat women like property, I'm sorry for the women you know.

I don't.

Morrissey wrote:
No Dan I am commenting on your incredible lack of insight (or your incredible need to apologize on behalf of LDS Inc)

Contemptuous sneering duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:
that you question whether polygamy, as practiced by 19th century Mormonism, had a great deal to do with power and control

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.

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.

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.

Morrissey wrote:
That you'd even question this shows the state of self-delusion under which you are laboring.

Personal insult duly noted. Failure to genuflect before Morrissey's views requires Morrissey to view the dissident with vocal personal contempt.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:48 am 
Truth Dancer wrote:
There is a reason Jesus Christ taught that a man and woman should cleave unto each other and no other; IMO it is because it is in this exclusive relationship where the depths of the human soul can be realized and where the beauty of emotional intimacy can transform the heart and soul.


This is why I love you, TD!

In just one quote, you summed up everything I was trying to get across in last night's discussion. :cool:


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:17 am 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2429
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Morrissey wrote:

Quote:
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.


He will never accept that critique. Ever. I've been wondering for years now if he will ever get it (even a sliver of it), but I believe now that it is a lost cause. Kind of sad, but then again we here critics are just animals to DCP for purposes of analysis. How dare we suggest to the great DCP that he reconsider his 'style.'

Oh, the madness, the madness of it all. :cool:

To watch from afar, and to then gloat how blessed he is for not falling into the same swamp. Not condescending, at all.

In fact, it is really cute. Really fascinating.

All I can say is Wow! Wow!

_________________
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:41 am 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Cet animal est fort méchant. Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

Gramps, go out for a walk. There's probably still some light there in Bavaria. It's really pretty. Take a look outside.

Morrissey wrote:
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?

No peevishness.

But I'll repeat my point as slowly and clearly as possible, in hopes that you'll get it this time: When advancing secular, empirical claims, secular, empirical evidence should be adduced in their support. When advancing theological claims within a theological (or even ideological) community that shares their presuppositions, those presuppositions don't require supporting argument. I was addressing Liz, not you. So far as I know, she shares those presuppositions.

Morrissey wrote:
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.

You'll have to demonstrate that. I don't share your presupposition.

(Are you grasping the logical principle yet?)

Morrissey wrote:
Now today you are apologizing for this system and the way in which it demeaned, objectified, and dehumanized women.

I've said virtually nothing in defense of plural marriage. I've simply affirmed my trust in God and in his prophet, through whom I believe the revelation on plural marriage came.

Your accusation that I defend "the way in which [the plural marriage system] demeaned, objectified, and dehumanized women" is flatly dishonest. I've done nothing of the kind, and I don't grant your presupposition.

(Is the logical point becoming clearer to you yet?)

Morrissey wrote:
And you continue to apologize for LDS Inc.'s

Contemptuous name-calling duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:
ongoing marginalization of women.

See above.

Morrissey wrote:
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.

You'll have to demonstrate that those I defend treat or treated women with "a distinct lack of respect." I don't share your presupposition.

(Got it?)

Morrissey wrote:
Why is that?

You ask me to explain a situation the existence of which I deny.

(Since this is a recurring problem for you, I hope you'll make a special effort to understand the logical principle at play here.)

Morrissey wrote:
I conclude that your blind devotion to LDS Inc.

Two insulting sneers in quick succession. Duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:
has warped your otherwise fine moral sensibilities on this issue.

Rather indirect insult duly noted. You might want to read something about the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well of discourse."

Morrissey wrote:
Or is there some other reason you come to the defense of a system that demeans and dehumanizes women?

Another way of naming the logical fallacy that so bedevils you is "Begging the Question." There's some good material on line that might help you as you struggle with your temptation in this regard.

Morrissey wrote:
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.

Slower, more careful reading would probably help you, too.

Morrissey wrote:
A point of such obvious self-evidence that it would take the most determined apologist to ignore it.

Implication of intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:
opted this abhorrent practice.Baloney. Power and control were (are) self-evident factors in fundamentalist religious practice of polygamy. It's not false bravado, it is truth.

Are you even consciously aware of how you've shifted your position on this matter?

Morrissey wrote:
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).

Irrelevant insults duly noted.

Morrissey wrote:
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.

Incoherence of utterly certain denial of the possibility of certainty noted with wry and silent amusement.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:46 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
LessUSee:
Quote:
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.

I don't feel all that "determined," but I have made it a point to study the dynamics of 19th century Mormonism, mostly through the records left by the men (and their wives) whom you cite above. (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Orson Pratt, Parley Pratt--among others.)

Consequently, I can only conclude that your examination of these same historical sources has been quite deficient. Why? Because if you mean to imply that "power and control" were exerted by these men over the women to whom they were married, the historical evidence will simply not support your conclusion. Now, I understand that you probably don't see any good reason to permit the evidence to get in the way of the story you're telling--replete with its 21st century sensibilities and perspectives. But any fair assessment of the status of women in polygamous marriages, especially those of the leading men of Mormonism, reveals an extraordinary (even by today's standards) wielding of self-directed power, control, and will by the very women you seem to believe were suffering under an oppressive regime of neanderthal-esque men who regarded their females little different than their livestock.

Now, in making the previous statement, it is my intention to make reference to some of the comments made by Heber C. Kimball; comments which have become more famous in the hands of modern critics of Mormonism than they ever were in his day. I am familiar with his comments concerning wives and cows. I believe they are misinterpreted by people who are motivated by a desire to place attitudes in the man that he did not naturally possess. Indeed, the evidence is clear that the wives of leading Mormons, including Heber C. Kimball, were fully empowered in their respective spheres. It is quite apparent from the available historical evidence that, generally speaking, their wives loved their husbands; that they were well cared for; that they were given great opportunities for education and personal improvement; and that, in the event they found the relationship something less than they desired, they were easily granted divorces and the freedom to pursue "greener pastures" for themselves.

In many ways, I think it could be argued that women in 19th century Utah enjoyed a greater scope of opportunity and influence than they ever have since. The reversion to a completely monogamous society reduced the opportunities for women as the 20th century progressed. And, in course of time, the Mormon culture came to reflect the attitudes about women shared by the rest of the country, and which are frequently typified by caricatures of the 1950s "stay at home" mother.

_________________
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group