Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:For example A Tale of Two Marriage Systems is the FAIR article on polyandry that I read when I was looking into claims being made and I have yet to find anyone that is satisfied by it or who finds it anything but unconvincing.
That article is so unconvincing that whenever someone asks me about polygamy and polyandry I send them there first. They never come back saying "Oh that makes sense."
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote: That's the problem. If there wasn't any sex involved why did he have to lie to anyone about it? Why not just tell Emma "God has commanded me to enter into a covenant relationship with these other women but I will remain completely faithful to you"? If there wasn't any sex involved why was Emma so upset about it?
That's also the problem with Bushman's "Dynastic Marriages" theory. If plural marriage were merely about linking family groups together, there wouldn't be a need for Joseph Smith to be sealed to nubile youngsters as husband and wife. He could just "adopt" people from the families he wanted to bring into the "dynasty" and make them sons or daughters or brothers or sisters. No need for plural marriage to link families in a dynastic manner. If it were all just about "spiritual" sealing without any real impact on the temporal marriages of the people involved, there would have been no need to keep it secret (from Emma, the church membership, and the world) at the time, and there would be no need for the church to be so embarrassed by it now. Of course, the whole "dynasty" apologetic is just an ad hoc rationalization to try to get around a sticky subject. Section 132, and the whole history of polygamy as practiced in Mormonism, shows that it was about "raising a righteous seed" (i.e., sex and extending patriarchal power).
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Madison54 wrote:Can someone explain to me why apologists (and others) go to such great lengths to prove that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with his polygamous wives and most specifically those that were polyandrous?
That is an excellent question Madison and one that I've often pondered myself. I think apologists focus on this because critics often want to portray Joseph Smith as a sex-crazed pedophile (the Warren Jeffs of his day) and so they want to try to counter this perception by pointing out the absence of evidence that any sexual relations occurred.
I agree.....especially when you consider the young age of some of them, it becomes very distasteful. Add to that, having sex with other men's wives and it's way past distasteful (but still seems acceptable behavior for Brigham Young to have done).
Cicero wrote:If you think about it more broadly speaking as it relates to Mormon's beliefs regarding the afterlife, then it is disturbing to me regardless of whether he had sexual relations with "those wimmin" (to paraphrase Bill Clinton and Pahoran). Think about how important the sealing ordinance is to Mormons with respect to our place and relation to our family in the eternities. Leaving aside the issue of sex for a moment, if you are a believer then what Joseph did was potentially disrupt eternal marriage bonds and to negatively affect certain male members' chances for attaining the highest degree of glory. I have always found that very troubling (along with the fact that this implies that your glory as a man increases in the afterlife depending upon the size of your eternal harem).
Equality wrote:That's also the problem with Bushman's "Dynastic Marriages" theory. If plural marriage were merely about linking family groups together, there wouldn't be a need for Joseph Smith to be sealed to nubile youngsters as husband and wife. He could just "adopt" people from the families he wanted to bring into the "dynasty" and make them sons or daughters or brothers or sisters. No need for plural marriage to link families in a dynastic manner. If it were all just about "spiritual" sealing without any real impact on the temporal marriages of the people involved, there would have been no need to keep it secret (from Emma, the church membership, and the world) at the time, and there would be no need for the church to be so embarrassed by it now. Of course, the whole "dynasty" apologetic is just an ad hoc rationalization to try to get around a sticky subject. Section 132, and the whole history of polygamy as practiced in Mormonism, shows that it was about "raising a righteous seed" (i.e., sex and extending patriarchal power).
All you evil anti-Mormons do is speculate about Joseph Smith's sex life. Have you no shame?
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Bob Loblaw wrote:Me: Honey, I have something important to tell you. You know that 16 year old girl who lives next door, the one with that tiny bikini? Yeah, well, God wants me to marry her. You'll still be my wife, my true love, but she'll be my wife, too. Oh, and God says if you don't go along with this, he'll destroy you. Dear Wife [laughing]: You always were a practical joker, Bob. Me: No, I'm being serious. That's what God commanded and who am I to say no to God?
MnG: Have you seen the serrated bread knife, Mr. Bobbitt?
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
Bob Loblaw wrote:Me: Honey, I have something important to tell you. You know that 16 year old girl who lives next door, the one with that tiny bikini? Yeah, well, God wants me to marry her. You'll still be my wife, my true love, but she'll be my wife, too. Oh, and God says if you don't go along with this, he'll destroy you. Dear Wife [laughing]: You always were a practical joker, Bob. Me: No, I'm being serious. That's what God commanded and who am I to say no to God?
MnG: Have you seen the serrated bread knife, Mr. Bobbitt?
I can't imagine Emma's suffering over this issue. She must have believed Joseph when he told her that God had commanded polygamy or she wouldn't have hesitatingly accepted it in a few cases. On the other hand she knew Joseph's history (Fanny Alger anyone?) and probably wondered if he was back to his old ways. Nevertheless she accepted. To call her unstable or a bitch is so completely wrong to me. She put up with a hell of a lot from Joseph that most wives wouldn't. Mine wouldn't.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Cicero wrote:Mental note: never EVER disagree with MnG . . .
Just so long as we're clear.
"In my more rebellious days I tried to doubt the existence of the sacred, but the universe kept dancing and life kept writing poetry across my life." ~ David N. Elkins, 1998, Beyond Religion, p. 81
If so, what are your thoughts? I haven't had a chance yet to read through the whole thing, but it seems to be pretty good even if his conclusions are a bit of a stretch. Also, I think Hales may have pushed the limits on interpreting Section 132 as condemning sexual polyandry (a woman having sex with both of her husbands).
I'd like to read his presentation at the Restoration Studies Symposium on Homosexuality...anyone know where I can read it?
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt
Bob Loblaw wrote:I can't imagine Emma's suffering over this issue. She must have believed Joseph when he told her that God had commanded polygamy or she wouldn't have hesitatingly accepted it in a few cases. On the other hand she knew Joseph's history (Fanny Alger anyone?) and probably wondered if he was back to his old ways. Nevertheless she accepted. To call her unstable or a bitch is so completely wrong to me. She put up with a hell of a lot from Joseph that most wives wouldn't. Mine wouldn't.
I don't think Emma believed him when he told her that God commanded polygamy, but what choice did she have? She had to know that a public confrontation with him would destroy both of them. How could she publicly dispute anything he claimed God told him? In the end, the choices made by Emma in Nauvoo all seem to be driven by protecting her position as the prophet's wife and the welfare of her children.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
