Jason

I'm still waiting for your reply




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

It's a documented historical fact that polygamy never became less abusive. It became very well hidden, but the physical, emotional, and spiritual toll were paramount to any well intentioned female.

I don't think Jason has come to terms with just how completely devoid of respect for women..LDS polygamy was and is because it still hasn't been renounced on moral grounds.

If it's just polygamy because one chooses that sexual lifestyle then that's one thing, but to throw one's salvation into the mix is the worst form of abuse I can think of. Maybe some here would like to share their spouses with another, but I would guess most wouldn't. So to be treated like cattle, given freely by my husband to somebody who claims he can get me into heaven, is just too abusive for me to imagine.

Actually, to me, laying the eternal salvation for one's entire family on the shoulders of a 14 yr old girl is just wrong.

But we're supposed to revere Joseph Smith!

Let's just put it out there for what it was and is. Joseph Smith was a narcissistic sexual addict with tons of charisma and was probably good in bed. I think he even surprised his parents with his dogma, and his followers, as they were used to his antics.

First lets get one thing straight. I am not defending LDS polygamy. I am not a fan of it, don't like it, believe it was an mistake to institute it and there is no question it would have been the end of the LDS Church had the Church not abandon it.

So what about the Children? I think it results in neglect for the children. How can a father parent the many children most plural marriages had? How can it be an intimate situation when the father is often absent? And sure there is the financial support as well. However I do not know the statistics on LDS polygamous families and how they fared financially.






Ok but based on what I have read I do.



I think you underestimate the charisma a strong religious leader has on their followers. Not only that but in Smiths case his followers were convinced he was a prophet on the caliber of Moses. So I still find his use of power and position to pressure women and even men into following the polygamous doctrine abusive.





Ok we will have to disagree to some extent. Of course there were some for whom this was the straw that broke their belief such as William Law. But he only believed Smith was a fallen prophet.





Perhaps that was an over statement. Yet if you read what many of the women in plural marriages wrote about it, it seems that many were quite happy, felt loved, believed it was of God and felt satisfied with their life. Many others did not of course. Perhaps that still does not remove the abuse it created. And sure, tying it to a religious doctrine makes it more compelling especailly as you note for those children raised in it.





I do not think I am arguing that it wasn't.





I don't think I am disagreeing with you here.

I think you are grossly in error on what I think. If you have followed me at all on this board you would know that LDS polygamy is the main issue that unraveled my belief in the LDS Church and JSs calling as a prophet. There are other issues as well. But this one is the lynch pin.

Jesus, Has nobody here read Todd Compton's book? Considerable research went into it, and it basically answers any questions anybody ever had about polygamy. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't ex him over it, so much of it is distasteful and painful. No, they weren't good fathers. No, they weren't even good men. And the women were left to starve much of the time. Or die in child birth. Let's examine that one sometime. If I have to spend my eternal life in the CK bearing children, I think I'd just as soon take my chances in a lower level.

Comptons book is about the only book on Polygamy I have not read. But doesn't it just address Smith's wives?

Compton's book addresses Smith's wives to a degree that no one thought possible. It also addresses the issue of polygamy in general, the people who practiced it, and some, who got kicked out of the church because of it. It's not an easy read.

It doesn't remove the abuse. People abused don't necessarily appreciate they are abused. We know now the "stockholm syndrome".

This is what I mean by you haven't come to terms yet. You do not fully appreciate the immorality of the LDS polygamy, how it treated and treats women as slaves and animals to breed. There was no consideration or respect for the women in that system. You can see this by just looking at the FLDS polygamy today..who are practicing polygamy as how Smith taught.

And women have been interviewed and say they are happy..but we've seen how people or females abducted and abused..end up thinking they "love" their abuser and don't even try to escape even though they may be subjected to horrific conditions. So what they say doesn't take away from the fact (which I'm hoping you'll appreciate)that the men do not and did not treat the women with any respect in the LDS polygamous system. It's an abusive immoral system. And you support a church which has not renounced it on moral grounds they've only complied with the law.

And you are simply in error on how I view LDS polygamy. But my seemingly stating this more than once is not enough to convince you.


How much have you read on this subject marg?

Are you now suggesting it wasn't an immoral system and the way the men in the system treated women was with respect as opposed to they were viewed as slaves and breeding animals?

So far Jason you've suggested that perhaps it wasn't all that abusive since some women claimed to be happy. Please take a look at this info: http://counsellingresource.com/lib/ther ... stockholm/
Can't you appreciate just how disrespectful of women the system was? Are you not capable of assessing the treatment of others and appreciating abuse when you see it, even though individuals may not claim to be abused? You are still attempting to justify it when you say "some women claimed to be happy".

And now it appears you are suggesting that it's my lack of knowledge on polygamy for why I don't appreciate ..that it wasn't abusive for those who claimed to be happy.

You simply are not appreciating that it is a completely disrespectful and hateful system against the women..and there is no justification for this particular system under the circumstances it was started up and practiced.

BTW Jason perhaps you can explain how the FLDS polygamy is different than what J. Smith set up..I'm not the only one appreciating the abuse and that women are viewed as if cattle.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opinio ... story.html

Daphne Brahman: "This repugnant abuse of girls and the trading of them as if they were cattle has to end."

Holy hell Marg, are you having a bad day?

No I am not attempting to justify LDS polygamy by relating some women seemed happy with their lot in life. But have you read even one word of what they said?

Yes I think it was an immoral and horribly hideous system. I never said it was not all that abusive.

Yes I think the LDS Church should renounce it and I am not happy vestiges of it remain by way of D&C 132 still being in the canon as well as the current policy that allows for men to be sealed to more than one woman if their spouse had died or if they are divorced.

Yes I am suggesting that you are poorly read on the history of this topic as well as defenses of it by apologists and those who are critical of it. The does not mean I disagree with most of your conclusions. But my question was really more curiouse. I have watched your methods in the past. You often attempt to speak with authority on things that it become clear you know little about. You tend to form an opinion then use a style of hammering home you point with an onslaught of rhetoric.

As for me personally I despise polygamy and already told you once that my research into it was the prime lynch pin of leading to my current lack of belief that the LDS Church is what it claimed.

What more do you want from me? I have no desire to defend LDS polygamy and I find it odd that with my position towards it on this board that you are arguing with me as if I do.

One last point.

I have often stated that had the LDS Church continues to practice polygamy it would look like the FLDS Church does today. The only difference may be that I do not have any evidence that Smith, Young or other LDS persons who practiced it was as abhorrent in their sexual activities with their younger wives as Warren Jeffs apparently was. But I do not know one way or the other.

The comments on some women benefiting from polygamy are horrendous. Women even now active in the church don't necessarily have a clue as to their abuse, taking positions they have little energy for, and pooping out children they really don't need to. Giving pause to polygamy, Smith's wives were frequently wed to him for time only, as in the case of Lucinda Harris, whose husband stood proxy for Joseph after he died so that his wife could be sealed to him for eternity. Now, why marry these women for time, if there was only a spiritual theme to the marriage? And why would these men stand proxy for the prof after his death, instead of marrying their wives for eternity themselves? I'd really like a historian's answer to this one.

No but I do feel very strongly about this polygamy and I can get very angry at any sort of arguments justifying it. I was really angry at Don Bradley's apologetic argument that Smith and Fanny thought they were married. It misses the boat at what Smith's polygamy was all about. And so what if Smith & Fanny thought they were married and all other polygamous men and women thought they were married, does that make it okay? Argh.



I'm giving you a hard time because what I'm seeing in your words a softening or leaning towards apologetics for Smith's/LDS polygamy.



But by saying that some women said they were happy and that the system became less abusive over time, you are downplaying the immorality and abuse..as well as not recognizing that those abused don't necessarily recognize they've been abused.



But Jason shifting to me and my knowledge is a typical apologist tactic to divert attention away from the real issues.

As I said, when you say many women said they were happy in polygamy and when you said it (polygamy) became less abusive, you are making an argument which justifies it. Going after my knowledge to criticize is not relevant. I'm giving you a hard time, because I am trying to forcefully make a point which I'm hoping you'll recognize. The point is, there is no justification for the LDS polygamy practiced ..that's the point. Please don't argue that women said they were happy or that it became less abusive.



What I want from you is what I said above, I want you to not justify it in any way in your arguments. The LDS polygamy was a barbaric system and you can not rely on people who were within the system who claimed to be happy with it. You have to critically evaluate it using your moral standards as to how LDS polygamous men treated females and must have viewed them.

(I'm gone for the next 24 hours.)

Jason obviously has issues that lead me to believe his LDS indoctrination has never been in serious question. That abuse continues in the church is a subject I doubt he'll see, since he sees benefits for some women of polygamy. Even if there were an occasional dollar amount that made it helpful, one is still being abused in order to get it. Would you like to sleep with your 80 year old uncle while still a teen in order to secure financial stability? Maybe, but it's still abuse. The abuse continues, because, they will be practicing it in heaven, and those women in the church really need to get their little minds around this one, cuz it ain't going away.

And you too are very certainly wrong. Try getting familiar with the person before you psychoanalyze them based on one or two posts on a message board.



Really? And where did I say I saw any benefits for some women in polygamy? All I said was if you read some of the women's journals they seemed happy. Perhaps they were deluded, perhaps they were subjects of Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps they were liars. That does not mean I do not think polygamy was abusive. It was and is.

By the way your post is even more ironic sense I have argued here that I think women in the LDS Church should receive the priesthood.


As I have argued in the past as well.

Actually, unless each case is analyzed on an individual basis, we can't know that ALL cases of polygamy were abusive. Some women obviously found it very attractive, even the part that tied to eternal salvation. Some women LIKE being tied, however lamely, to a male leader, especially a male spiritual leader, especially a male spiritual leader who was both charming and good looking.

Good grief! There is no denying my very public abhorrance of the Abomination, but even I am able to see that for SOME women, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Maybe they were prettier so got more attention, or maybe they wanted the prestige, or maybe they just didn't care... they just wanted to sleep with the prophet. (I suspect Zina fit into these catagories). No matter how you slice it, some women, a small minority, LIKED it, pursued it, and then flaunted it.

Abusive to us, by the way, does not automatically equate to abusive to them. While many many of the women were desperately unhappy, desperately poor, desperately lonely and unloved, there were also many many women who were desperately unhappy, poor, lonely and unloved who weren't LDS and lived in just as abusive environments. It was not an easy time to be female, especially single female, especially female with bastard children. At least these men made an attempt, sorry though it was, to give their children their name.