Rational justification for Polygamy?

[_Morrissey]

And you know all this . . . how, exactly?

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

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.

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.

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[_Yoda]

There is a reason Jesus Christ taught that a man and woman should cleave unto each other and no other; in my opinion 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.

[_Morrissey]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Again, good for the goose and all that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[_gramps]

Morrissey wrote:

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.

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!

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

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.

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?)

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?)

And you continue to apologize for LDS Inc.'s

Contemptuous name-calling duly noted.

ongoing marginalization of women.

See above.

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?)

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.)

I conclude that your blind devotion to LDS Inc.

Two insulting sneers in quick succession. Duly noted.

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."

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.

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.

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

Implication of intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

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?

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.

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.

[_William Schryver]

LessUSee:

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.

[_Morrissey]

LessUSee:

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.

[_Yoda]

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!

[_Daniel Peterson]

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.

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.

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.