Just in passing - looking at your sig line, "Cum catapultae proscriptae erat, tum soli proscript catapultas habeunt", I guess that one of two things may be true:

1. You don't know any Latin grammar, but you like to copy what you think are hilarious quotes in that language off websites.

2. You do know Latin grammar, and you post bad Latin in your sig line as a form of self-punishment, or as a provocation to the pedantic, maybe in the same way as the poster who has a sig line with a quote from 'Einstien'.

Neither of these possibilities has any relevance to the truth-value of your views on religious questions, of course.

Your feigned ignorance of Warren Jeffs says much about the courage of your convictions. You’re essentially running away.


From your first post in this thread: it seems that since "morality" comes from God, it would be an error to claim that His commands are criminal.

If you can’t back up your assertions you shouldn’t make them in the first place. Man up, boy.


So now that you’ve looked it up you know the one is a variant of the other. You may have a cookie.


You’re not a native English speaker, are you?


The one derives from the other, similar to how Warren Jeffs' priesthood authority derives from that of Joseph Smith. Both are sexual batterers. Both have a history of deception for the purpose of personal gain and enrichment. Both are criminals.

Tell me, which of these cretins do you claim to be a prophet? Joseph or Warren? Or both?

Or will you run away from this question too?


My question from my previous post: Would you agree that sexual battery, alleged or otherwise, is a bad thing?

You refusal to answer says a great deal about the courage of your convictions. Again, you’re running away.


Ah, so this is what you’re saying now instead of “ugh” when you really mean “I concede your point.”

Whatever blows your skirt, dude.


Yet, apart from this instance here you’ve suddenly stopped saying “ugh”. How telling.

Which "prophet" are you defending? Warren Jeffs or Joseph Smith?

Or maybe he's offering a hint that he's posting to provoke not because he really believes what he says.

I have a hard time sometimes accepting (on religiously related message boards) that people really do believe what they say..and yet I'm often wrong on that. Who would have thought a PHD professor would with sincerity ask the question.."what would you do if an angel asked you to commit adultery?". I would have thought that was a joke had I known nothing about DCP..but knowing him I appreciate he's sincere that it's something he'd say for apologetic purposes..to imply that was really Smith's situation. Not that I've checked the interview to verify but it in line with something he'd likely say.

He phrased it as 'polygamy' or maybe 'plural marriage'. DCP did not use the term 'adultery'.

But it is interesting that not one poster (unless I missed it) said 'yeah sure God, I'll practice polygamy if you command it'. That's encourgaing but doesn't say much for Smith.

I take that as an encouraging sign too.

Large numbers of people who, like Martin Harris, lack a functioning BS filter is not a good thing.

I stand corrected, sorry about that you even said "polygamy" in the OP.

For the record if DCP had said "adultery" I would have thought better of him as I don't find adultery as immoral or disrespectful of women as the sort of polygamy that J. Smith created and ultimately practiced by the FLDS.

marg

I think adultery is pretty repugnant. It always involves betrayal of a vow and a commitment and is usually started out in secret. Often it not only destroys one marriage but another if both partners in the adultery are married. Children can suffer, spouses suffer financially, it is often an ugly mess.

Now I certainly do not defend polygamy at all unless it is between persons that can consent totally without duress as well as it not resulting in putting women in a subjugated position. One of the biggest problems I have with Joseph Smith and polygamy is it seems initially that it was a cover for adultery. Later as it was expanded it was done in secret behind his wife's back. He also used it to test the loyalty of some of those in high leadership in the Church by asking for their wives then telling them it was just a test. I find this abusive. He also used his position of power as well as some women's faith in him as a prophet to persuade them to marry him. All very abusive and repugnant.

However after the LDS Church publicly practiced it, while I think it was still an unhealthy and could end up in an emotionally empty relationship for many women I think it became less abusive. The biggest issue may have been that top leaders seemed more succesful in obtaining women, teachings that a woman was justified in leaving her husband for another in higher power, teaching that such marriage was required to get to the highest reward in heaven-all this added to moral problems in the LDS practice of polygamy.

However, on the other hand it was not mandated and a person could opt out not to practice it and only 25% of the Church did so. As time progressed it seemed most who entered into polygamy did so of their own choice. So while it was rife with problems I am curious to know why you think it was worse than adultery if most he did it did so under their own choice?

Jason,

Notice that I said the “sort of polygamy that J. Smith created and ultimately practiced by the FLDS.

By “sort of polygamy” ..this is what I mean: the sort he created was using women selfishly with no consideration for their benefit..to be used as a replacement for hired help, sex, breeding (mainly of more females)..in essence his polygamy was slavery for a woman.. life long after marriage. Of course there would be some exceptions, but for the majority in such a system that’s what it inevitably ends up being. The system is not set up to benefit women in any way, nor treat them better than a slave. And slaveowners throughout history have not regarded slaves as even human..and that’s pretty much how the women are viewed in this system and treated…as animals as non-human.

By encouraging that very young daughters of men are to be traded or handed over to some older man, other men’s wives fair game..we end up in the FLDS with the actual system he set in motion and must have had in mind..since he knew how easily it was to control and manipulate people through the religion.

Once there are polygamous families established..the young females are indoctrinated from a young age to be polygamous wives. Few within the FLDS realize they have any other opportunities..nor do they really have other opportunities.

Adultery on the other hand is not a form of slavery, does not entail being owned by any man and does not necessarily entail a complete disregard for the rights of women, nor necessarily treat them as breeding stock, and free labor.

As I pointed out in another post, I don’t think the sex that went on between Smith and his polygamous wives was necessarily abusive, unless they were put under extreme undue influence which may have been the case for some. But for many I think it was a choice and they weren’t his slaves, living in his household.

And even shortly after Smith's polygamous system began..as long as it truly was a choice for women...and by that I mean they weren't raised in the system and they had other opportunities..then I don't think they were necessarily abused.

But it's the system Jason, that it's okay to hand over young daughters, it's okay to send men away on mission and fair game to take on other mens' wives and built into the religious belief is that ultimately to reach the highest heaven..one must practice polygamy..that I have an issue with. The church has not renounced that system..they have only renounced polygamy out of pressure and to stay within the laws. DCP is really defending that system and same with Don Bradley when they argue that Smith's polygamy can be justified. I don't care what Smith did personally, (though perhaps an LDS member should) but I detest that sort of polygamy which Smith promoted because ultimately if it is followed it ends up treating the women caught in the system with no or little alternatives..as slaves. And that is why the LDS church should have renounced that polygamy as immoral. And perhaps if they had done that the FLDS wouldn't exist. The FLDS think their polygamy is morally okay and that they are simply not abiding by the law which shouldn't dictate their morals. They think the LDS church would agree that their polygamy is morally okay..because they are practicing what Smith preached.

What about the children Jason? Most polygamy is bound to cause a situation of poverty, reduced parental involvement particularly of the dad. And if it's the sort of polygamy promoted by J. Smith which is tied to religious belief ...polygamy is not a choice it ends up being perpetuated through indoctrination from a young age.



I don't really find this abusive except maybe for Emma. But the adults in the scenario you give (except Emma) are not being abused. They have a responsibility for their choices. They don't have to follow Smith, that's their choice. And they weren't indoctrinated from a young age.



No not really. If adults are so gullible as to believe Smith, that's their problem. Smith is not responsible for others stupidity.



So this I do wish you to respond to. Why do you think for many women the LDS polygamy "became less abusive"?



Jason the whole system of LDS polygamy was immoral, there is no justification for it.



So the ones who "did so of their own choice", subjected their children to indoctrination of it, using religious beliefs as justification. The liklihood the children would carry on polygamy was high..and keep in mind Smith's polygamy allowed for essentially handing over daughters at a young age to other men. So for women brought up in a polygamous system indoctrinated into the religious belief system which incorporated polygamy ..it's not likely the young women are capable of choosing rationally. It's an abusive system for women Jason, albeit there can be mitigating circumstances to justify polygamy, but Smith's or the LDS' polygamy has no mitigating circumstances to justify it.

What mitigating circumstance would justify polygamy?

well, in consideration for "just in passing" which is apparently a euphemism for "here is my passive aggressive insult" i offer the following:
"guessing" at what may be true seems to be your forte' so i have no real comment on your personal pendanticalness.
After reading your sig line, perhaps "He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones" would be more appropriate?
Of course, you failed to recognize that both 1 and 2 above could be true, but likely that was due to your inadequate associations with one's abilities with Latin grammar.
nevertheless, thanks for passing by to drop an insult. I believe that most people call that "flame" or "flaming", but seemingly i can give you the benefit of the doubt that you really just do not know any better....at least, i guess that to be true.

- After a war (or some other situation) in which there was a significant temporary shortage of men imposed upon a society, (I'm not talking about a situation in which by choice there is a shortage of men)

- in a society with extreme poverty, if one man could afford to take care of financially ...a few families..not the number of families the LDS leaders took on, I'm talking about taking care of emotionally and financially a few families..that other men are too poor to provide for.

- possibly a very rich male who can afford to take care of women and children and their lives are not negatively impacted is a significant way and they might even be better off in such a financially secure marriage than a non financially secure one and they are treated well. They aren't simply a replacement for hired labor, and treated as animals. That is they are provided with a high quality of life, education etc.

As I've pointed out previously the LDS system was one which promoted treating women as slaves (sex and for labor) ..and essentially viewed them as breeding animals..not human beings. It's a disgusting immoral barbaric system and the LDS church has never renounced it on those grounds.

Oh come one. For any of you still entrenched, you already believe in practicing polygamy, because you'll be doing it in the CK. Remember those lovely stories about women unable to find worthy men in this life, being given to other men in the hereafter? Ya really think there's gonna be a plethora of single men in the CK?

Yes, but none of those scenarios necessitate polygamy. Someone can take care of a few families without marrying any member of them.

Ok let's see

-in the first one...after a war (or shortage of men for some other reason)...sexual relations via polygamy would entail a greater increase in population for that society than if the women didn't have any partner. An increase in population might be an important factor.

- the second one ...I was thinking of a t.v. documentary show I watched years ago involving a man having 2 wives in a small african town. It was justified because he had the financial means to care for 2 women and their children whereas many other men in that town lived in extreme poverty. He only had 2 wives and he went out of his way to treat them equitably.

- the third one...I'm thinking along the lines of extremely rich men..but you are right this doesn't mean there aren't other better options to the women. The only mitigating factor here is that the children and the women..might be very well treated ..and it truly be a good option..better quality of life than monogamy. With Brigham Young he had money but he didn't view or treat the women well, he had them working and living in poor conditions and there were better options for them. But on the whole I don't particular like polygamy being justified because a man is very well off..but if the women and children are treated well, given an education..not treated as animals..I can see an argument for it..not that it's necessary but that it may truly be a good choice for a woman and her children. But I can see an argument against that as well.

Has anyone bothered to read any historical accounts of mormon polygamy? From LDS historian Todd Compton? At last notice, he was still a practicing mormon, so his book wasn't written as a beef against typical doctrine, rather, a historical account of the wives of Joseph Smith. And this man was taking wives age 14 and up, and also taking several wives already married to other men. The heinous behavior of other men who presumptuously left their multiple wives when directed to leaves much to be desired. Poverty stricken women left on their own, and, while the creed was still in effect, left to fend for themselves on a routine basis, with bad health and little food.

Polygamous wives tend to have fewer children than monogamous wives, though.

That would be the case if you are comparing monogamy to polygamy without any restriction on number of males available for females to mate with in each comparable group. It would seem reasonable that the greater the number of wives..the less likely any one wife would get pregnant..as the man is spreading himself thin so to speak.

But if there wasn't an option of monogamy, that is there truly are significant fewer males to females..then of course pregnancies are bound to increase by women (mating polygamously) who otherwise would have no mate if only monogamy was an option.

I suppose you're right. Still, it seems unwise to try to artificially inflate childbirth under those circumstances.

How do you propose that it is an "artificial" inflation, or for that matter an inflation at all? And furthermore, by what "wisdom"?
It would seem quite obvious that polygamy, as practiced throughout other communities, is a cultural practice stemming from various influences.

I would submit that it is an artificial relationship for most people. Some might gravitate toward it naturally, but I doubt most who have practiced it (especially the women) would have.