It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 5:40 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 227 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:55 am 
Elder

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


I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the historical record, I conclude you are willfully misinterpreting it to fit with a pre-defined conclusion, and I find your apologies for polygamy distasteful.

Polygamy may have produced some benefits for women, but this line of argument is similar in my mind to Castro apologists who like to point out that Cuba offers its citizens universal eduction and health care, as if this is sufficient to apologize for what is in essence a police state.

If you want to understand much about 19th century Mormon polygamy, look no further than the FLDS today. I have no doubt that were supporting the FLDS considered crucial to defending 19th century Mormon polygamy, you'd find ways to conclude FLDS polygamy is wonderful too.

Like Dan, you blind devotion to Mormonism has warped your moral sensibilities.

Women trapped in polygamy are not abstractions that you can dismiss away in typical apologetic manner. They are real people with real lives, hopes, aspirations, etc., and they deserve the same human dignity and respect as you do. Your dismissal of this self-evident fact is morally repugnant to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:56 am 
Will wrote:
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.


Will, would you mind expanding on this a bit further?

As a believer, I have always been bothered by the statement Heber C. Kimball made regarding "marrying a woman is like buying a cow".

Even if he was joking, it was a statement made in completely poor taste, and exemplifies the exact type of attitude toward women that is the epitome of un-Christlike behavior.

When you say that President Kimball's comments were misinterpreted, would you mind explaining how? Are you saying that he actually didn't make the comment?

I'm also curious about your comment regarding his wives being fully empowered "within their respective spheres." What exactly do you mean by that?

Thanks! :smile:


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:05 am 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Morrissey wrote:
If you want to understand much about 19th century Mormon polygamy, look no further than the FLDS today.

That is, of course, an eminently debatable assertion. I see vast differences between the two.

Morrissey wrote:
I find your apologies for polygamy distasteful. . . . Like Dan, you blind devotion to Mormonism has warped your moral sensibilities. . . . Your dismissal of this self-evident fact is morally repugnant to me.

Disagreement with Morrissey is unmistakable proof of defective ethics and even of immorality. Dissent from his opinions at your peril.

Morrissey wrote:
Women trapped in polygamy are not abstractions that you can dismiss away in typical apologetic manner. They are real people with real lives, hopes, aspirations, etc., and they deserve the same human dignity and respect as you do.

This is rather bizarre, coming from somebody who apparently imagines that the reality of history can be determined by reasoning from "self-evident certainties," absent empirical data.

_________________

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 11:44 am 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
Morrissey wrote:
If you want to understand much about 19th century Mormon polygamy, look no further than the FLDS today.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
That is, of course, an eminently debatable assertion. I see vast differences between the two.


I never said that there were no differences. It's the similarities I'm interested in. Similarities such as how polygamy objectifies women, accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc.

Morrissey wrote:
I find your apologies for polygamy distasteful. . . . Like Dan, you blind devotion to Mormonism has warped your moral sensibilities. . . . Your dismissal of this self-evident fact is morally repugnant to me.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
Disagreement with Morrissey is unmistakable proof of defective ethics and even of immorality. Dissent from his opinions at your peril.


No, apologizing for religious systems that dehumanize and demean women is proof of defective operations of one's moral sense (not that one has a defective moral sense, only that it is malfunctioning in this case) and evidence that loyalty to the tribe yet again trumps all other considerations.

I have limited patience with people who treat human rights and dignity as a negotiable abstraction when it does not involve them personally.

Morrissey wrote:
Women trapped in polygamy are not abstractions that you can dismiss away in typical apologetic manner. They are real people with real lives, hopes, aspirations, etc., and they deserve the same human dignity and respect as you do.

Daniel Peterson wrote:
This is rather bizarre, coming from somebody who apparently imagines that the reality of history can be determined by reasoning from "self-evident certainties," absent empirical data.


Wrong, I've based on conclusion on extensive reading and observations of early Mormon polygamy and its modern manifestations. The evidence of how polygamy as practiced by early Mormons and FLDS today (its modern manifestation) objectifies and dehumanizes women is so obvious that it fits the description 'self-evident.'

That you continue to apologize for this practice is morally repugnant to me. I am not saying you personally lack morals or that you personally are morally repugnant; I am saying that in this specific case, your defense of a system that demeans and dehumanizes women is morally repugnant to me.

Similarly I find Wade's and Nehor's blatant bigotry toward homosexuals morally repugnant.

If you want to defend polygamy Dan you cannot realistically expect people to have no moral objections to it, can you?? I mean, does your devotion to Mormonism leave you so detached from the real world that you cannot understand this?

Oh, and, Yes, I take it as a self-evident truth that woman's needs, hopes, desires, etc. are every bit as important as man's. I also take it as a self-evident truth that people inherently posses value in and of themselves; that they are more than a means to someone else's ends.

Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons violates both of these self-evident truths.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: in the dog house
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.

I can think of no logical reason why monogamy is the only place where such depths can be realized, but somehow that is how I experience romantic love--exclusiveness is best.

However, the logical part of me wonders why the love of God isn't where the depths of the soul are realized surpassing even romantic love. The love of God does not require an exclusive relationship. I therefore see no logical reason that polygyny or polyandry cannot do the same even though emotionally I don't think I could.

_________________
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 11:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
liz3564 wrote:
Will wrote:
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.


Will, would you mind expanding on this a bit further?

As a believer, I have always been bothered by the statement Heber C. Kimball made regarding "marrying a woman is like buying a cow".

Even if he was joking, it was a statement made in completely poor taste, and exemplifies the exact type of attitude toward women that is the epitome of un-Christlike behavior.

When you say that President Kimball's comments were misinterpreted, would you mind explaining how? Are you saying that he actually didn't make the comment?

I'm also curious about your comment regarding his wives being fully empowered "within their respective spheres." What exactly do you mean by that?

Thanks! :smile:

Liz,

I believe Heber's comments were much more understandable in the context of the world in which he lived. It is apparent from the whole of the historical record that Heber was quite sensitive to the needs of his many wives, at least insofar as he appreciated those needs in the context of his times. He was clearly willing to permit any dissatisfied wife to go her way, and he likewise provided abundantly for those who chose to stay married to him. I think it is also notable that Heber's first wife was universally adored by her sister wives. To me, this is also indicative of the atmosphere of love, trust, and security in which his wives lived.

You would do well to read more of the first-hand accounts of plural wives in 19th century Utah. I perceive a considerable disconnect between our current attitudes and the attitudes of those who took part in "the principle."

I do not mean to play apologist for every aspect of plural marriage. (After all, Belinda Pratt has already fulfilled that calling.) I am quite conscious of its inherent challenges, and I also think that it is essential to understand that our modern concepts of love, romance, and the ideal marital relationship are not entirely consistent with the cultural attitudes of pioneer-era Mormonism, nor with America in general at the time. But to reflexively conclude that women were oppressed in some way because their lives were different from ours is a naïve and rather uninformed interpretation of the times and the lives of those who willingly adapted themselves to the unique parameters of the era of plural marriage.

Incidentally, no one was "forced" into plural marriage--neither men nor women. I descend from early pioneer stock, and yet I have yet to identify a single plural marriage among my pioneer ancestors, this despite the fact that many of the men were leaders in their respective wards and stakes. They simply chose to not participate in plural marriage, just as 85% or so of Mormon men during the era.

_________________
... 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 ...


Last edited by William Schryver on Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:58 am 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Morrissey wrote:
If you want to defend polygamy Dan you cannot realistically expect people to have no moral objections to it, can you?? I mean, does your devotion to Mormonism leave you so detached from the real world that you cannot understand this?

No.

And I've said nothing to suggest otherwise.

Morrissey wrote:
Oh, and, Yes, I take it as a self-evident truth that woman's needs, hopes, desires, etc. are every bit as important as man's. I also take it as a self-evident truth that people inherently posses value in and of themselves; that they are more than a means to someone else's ends.

So do I.

Morrissey wrote:
Polygamy as practiced by early Mormons violates both of these self-evident truths.

I disagree.

_________________

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 11:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2398
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
DCP wrote:

Quote:
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.


Cute, DCP. But....what actually are you trying to imply?

I just returned from a two-hour ride on my bicycle along the river. Stopped for a brief dip (naked) in the lake. This was all after marking around 15 papers (I'm pacing myself), as well as, completing some research in the library, walking the dog and cooking two delicious meals. In fact, there are some onions, together with some paprika and mushrooms simmering on the stove. I've boiled some potatoes, pulled out the quark from the fridge, and am now barbecuing a steak marinated in paprika sauce out in the garden. Bavaria is indeed beautiful.

And gosh, I wonder what you've done today besides your typical. Are you getting any exercise? I'm sure you didn't get any naked swimming in today. But how about a long bike ride, or did you drive your car to work?

By the number of posts you have accumulated, especially in comparison to mine, it seems perhaps it is you that ought to get out more and take your own advice. Hang out with your wife or friends in the mountains. I won't make any jokes about the donuts, but people here have seen my picture and a lot of us have seen yours. It is certain that you would benefit much more than me by getting out and away from that computer screen.

DCP, go out for a walk. Utah County is really pretty. Take a look outside. Get some exercise. :razz: That is my one smiley for the evening, I promise.

_________________
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 12:05 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Do you post anything besides personal attacks, gramps? I hadn't, as I say, paid much attention to you until very recently, and essentially all I've seen from you since then have been insults directed at me. Were you doing that even before? Have I been ignoring your little potshots? If so, I apologize. Both for the ones I've missed in the past and for the ones that I intend to overlook in the future.

_________________

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 12:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
LessUSee:
Quote:
I never said that there were no differences. It's the similarities I'm interested in. Similarities such as how polygamy objectifies women, accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc.

This paragraph is simply indicative of your obvious ignorance concerning 19th century plural marriage in Utah. The differences between the environment of pre-Manifesto plural marriage with its post-Manifesto examples are profound and numerous. To me, the most telling difference is the nature of the "open society" of 19th century Mormon polygamy vs. the insular and "closed society" of 20th and 21st century polygamy among apostate Mormon groups. I doubt you can cite any examples of Warren Jeffs' wives traveling to Europe or the metropolitan areas of the eastern United States in order to study art or become physicians, as did numerous plural wives of 19th century Mormons.

But, in the interest of resolving this dispute, feel free to post examples of "accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc." I am not aware of any such examples, but perhaps you have been more rigorous in your studies than I.

_________________
... 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 12:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:32 pm
Posts: 6190
Location: in the dog house
By the way, I seem to detect at least two separate objections to polygyny here. One deals with the depths of intimacy in monogamy vs polygamy. The other deals with coercing women into said relationships more or less against their better judgment and by extension not treating women with respect and dignity.

I find the latter repugnant and do not defend it. The only thing I might dispute is whether that is how it was practiced by the early saints. However, as I am no history buff, I will not attempt to make an argument there in either direction instead deferring to those apologists who have a better grasp of such things and dispute that the latter is simply not how polygyny was practiced among the early saints.

_________________
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 12:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 1671
Location: Elsewhere
asbestosman wrote:
By the way, I seem to detect at least two separate objections to polygyny here. One deals with the depths of intimacy in monogamy vs polygamy. The other deals with coercing women into said relationships more or less against their better judgment and by extension not treating women with respect and dignity.

I find the latter repugnant and do not defend it. The only thing I might dispute is whether that is how it was practiced by the early saints. However, as I am no history buff, I will not attempt to make an argument there in either direction instead deferring to those apologists who have a better grasp of such things and dispute that the latter is simply not how polygyny was practiced among the early saints.

I have been a student of that era. I can say, without reservation, that my studies of the primary sources indicates that the kinds of abuse intimated by 21st century critics of Mormonism and 19th century Mormon polygyny is rarely to be found in the evidence. In fact, quite the opposite.

_________________
... 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 12:27 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Abman, :-)

Quote:
However, the logical part of me wonders why the love of God isn't where the depths of the soul are realized surpassing even romantic love. The love of God does not require an exclusive relationship. I therefore see no logical reason that polygyny or polyandry cannot do the same even though emotionally I don't think I could.


As someone who doesn't believe in a personal/human-male-being as God, I don't quite understand your comment. In addition, I am not talking about "romantic" love, I'm talking about ethereal, transcendent, soul-mate type of love... the kind of love that comes after a life-time of exclusive sharing and loving.

And, no it is not possible when a man has multiple women. The soul-mate type of relationship requires exclusivity, sexually and otherwise.

A couple of thoughts though... first there is no real intimacy where there is no equality. Period. IOW, inequality disallows true intimacy.

Secondly, IMO, the very essence of existence is the fundamental "idea" or phenomenon or philosophy of yin/yang. I find the idea of imbalance (yang/yin, yin, yin, yin, yin) going against the very nature of the universe, (for numerous reasons of which I don't have time to go into).

Finally, I remember as a believer contemplating the idea that if God loves perfectly and fully and we all become Gods and Goddesses (as much as this idea revolts me), would we not love everyone perfectly and completely? Which would mean the depth of love would be the same for every single person. Hmmm... then why have marriages? Why have families? Why limit sex with whomever one is sealed to on the earth? Why not just seal everyone to everyone? (smile) Then again, some people do believe sealing is not really to a person but some sort of ordinance to be sealed to God's family or something along these lines. Who knows? LOL!

:ugeek:

~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 12:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2398
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Do you post anything besides personal attacks, gramps? I hadn't, as I say, paid much attention to you until very recently, and essentially all I've seen from you since then have been insults directed at me. Were you doing that even before? Have I been ignoring your little potshots? If so, I apologize. Both for the ones I've missed in the past and for the ones that I intend to overlook in the future.


Pretty blind sometimes, aren't you?

Follow the threads back and see who started the attack. I'll help you out.

Quote:
Wow! Fascinating! I wonder what Freud would say...
Or something close to that. It's the condescension that drips from your posts. Did you forget that you started it?

Anyway, I am just here for kicks and I enjoy giving it to you. I've watched you dish it out to Harmony over the years, as well as, many others. You have a problem with getting back what you dish out?

DCP, you are not innocent here, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think you are?

_________________
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 12:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 7603
gramps wrote:
DCP, you are not innocent here, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think you are?

Of course he is, gramps. He only defends himself. He never starts anything. It's always the cornered animal syndrome with danny.

Of course, now he's at the point where he's been on the defense so long, he does preemptive defensive strikes, which are not to be confused with offensive strikes, even though they appear to be exactly the same thing.

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Salt Lake, we have a problem." - Fence Sitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:45 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
William Schryver wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
By the way, I seem to detect at least two separate objections to polygyny here. One deals with the depths of intimacy in monogamy vs polygamy. The other deals with coercing women into said relationships more or less against their better judgment and by extension not treating women with respect and dignity.

I find the latter repugnant and do not defend it. The only thing I might dispute is whether that is how it was practiced by the early saints. However, as I am no history buff, I will not attempt to make an argument there in either direction instead deferring to those apologists who have a better grasp of such things and dispute that the latter is simply not how polygyny was practiced among the early saints.

I have been a student of that era. I can say, without reservation, that my studies of the primary sources indicates that the kinds of abuse intimated by 21st century critics of Mormonism and 19th century Mormon polygyny is rarely to be found in the evidence. In fact, quite the opposite.


That's just the problem Will, you define abuse too narrowly. A young girl may in fact be treated respectfully by the middle-aged man to whom she was given. But the very fact that she was 'given' to him, that she had no choice in the matter, that she is denied the intimacy that is a a presumed benefit of marriage, that her needs/wants were irrelevant in the exchange, is itself abuse.

Polygamy is a system very much designed with the needs of men in mind, not the needs of women. Get a sense of how even faithful Mormon women cringe at the idea of polygamy, and you'll begin to understand.

Your argument lacks empathy, which is generally true of men who apologize for polygamy. It's a great system, as long as it's someone else (preferably someone in the abstract and preferably women) who surrender their needs and wants for the good of the system. Men get another woman to f***.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:48 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:43 am
Posts: 2398
Location: In an Utrecht coffeehouse with my lady friend
Some Schmo wrote:
gramps wrote:
DCP, you are not innocent here, by any stretch of the imagination. Do you think you are?

Of course he is, gramps. He only defends himself. He never starts anything. It's always the cornered animal syndrome with danny.

Of course, now he's at the point where he's been on the defense so long, he does preemptive defensive strikes, which are not to be confused with offensive strikes, even though they appear to be exactly the same thing.


He is a lot like my dad. So righteous, that it is impossible to be guilty of anything. No passive-aggression, nope. No baiting, nope. It is always the sinner's problem. Always.

Blech. He is sooo chapel Mormon. I am sure he and Bruce R. would get along. They've got this schtick down so well, they may actually believe it.

edited to add: Yes, I know Bruce R. is dead and I should have written that better. Just trying to preempt DCPs word game to make me feel stupid. Which I think I can bet on.

_________________
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 12:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 7603
gramps wrote:
He is a lot like my dad. So righteous, that it is impossible to be guilty of anything. No passive-aggression, nope. No baiting, nope. It is always the sinner's problem. Always.

Blech. He is sooo chapel Mormon.

He's going to love that you called him a chapel mormon.

If I were like him, I'd state it as though it were some insightful prediction, and pat myself on the back for it, even though anyone who's only marginally paying attention could have predicted the exact same thing.

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Salt Lake, we have a problem." - Fence Sitter


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:06 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Some more lucid readers may be puzzled by the recent spate of attack-posts on this thread.

I'm not sure what the explanation is, but I think they may be coming in response to Sethbag's unfortunate civility and substance on the "SquareTwo" thread. I told Sethbag there that, if he wanted to, he could learn incivility and lack of substance from other vocal posters here at MDB. In a touching show of public-spiritedness and concern for Sethbag, some of the star performers in the genre have stepped forward almost immediately in order to provide him with practical demonstrations of their art.

_________________

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 1:11 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:42 pm
Posts: 329
William Schryver wrote:
LessUSee:
Quote:
I never said that there were no differences. It's the similarities I'm interested in. Similarities such as how polygamy objectifies women, accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc.

This paragraph is simply indicative of your obvious ignorance concerning 19th century plural marriage in Utah. The differences between the environment of pre-Manifesto plural marriage with its post-Manifesto examples are profound and numerous. To me, the most telling difference is the nature of the "open society" of 19th century Mormon polygamy vs. the insular and "closed society" of 20th and 21st century polygamy among apostate Mormon groups. I doubt you can cite any examples of Warren Jeffs' wives traveling to Europe or the metropolitan areas of the eastern United States in order to study art or become physicians, as did numerous plural wives of 19th century Mormons.

But, in the interest of resolving this dispute, feel free to post examples of "accumulating wives as a prerogative and demonstration of power among elites, trapping young girls in loveless marriages to older men, women as means to men's fulfillment, women as walking wombs, marrying off girls at young ages in spite of their desires/needs, etc." I am not aware of any such examples, but perhaps you have been more rigorous in your studies than I.


19th century Mormons had attributes of openness as you describe. It was also in many other ways a closed, tribal society. That's certainly how much of the general public back then viewed the Mormons. The way people today view the FLDS is also similar in many ways to how Mormons were viewed in the 19th century.

I repeat, I've never said early Mormon polygamy and FLDS were identical; but many of the elements found in FLDS today were found in 19th century Mormondom as well.

What can I say Will, if you cannot see the things I've cited in 19th century polygamy, it implies either that you lack a scintilla of perception or that your loyalty to the tribe has blinded you. Either way, not very flattering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Rational justification for Polygamy?
PostPosted: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:59 am
Posts: 7603
Daniel Peterson wrote:
I told Sethbag there that, if he wanted to, he could learn incivility and lack of substance from other vocal posters here at MDB. In a touching show of public-spiritedness and concern for Sethbag, some of the star performers in the genre have stepped forward almost immediately in order to provide him with practical demonstrations of their art.

...starring Dan P as the lead uncivil and non-substance writing poster!

BTW, it's not much of a prediction if you're going to fulfill it yourself. Just a note for the future, smart guy.

_________________
"You get to have your own beliefs, and your own wishes, and dreams, and imaginations. What you don't get to have is your own reality." - Sethbag

"Salt Lake, we have a problem." - Fence Sitter


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

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alscai, Doctor CamNC4Me, Dr. Shades, Droopy, EAllusion, Google [Bot], GrandMoffTarkin, Mayan Elephant, Quasimodo, Sethbag, Shiloh, SteelHead, suniluni2, Symmachus, thews and 39 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