Bushman article from the NYT

[_truth dancer]

If my neighbor has affairs with a couple teenagers down the street and claims to marry them because God told him in a dream.... most folks consider him sick, perverted, and evil.

If Joseph Smith does it, he is showing his obedience to a "hard" commandment.

If Joshua slaughters a community of non-believers, he is considered obeying God, if the 911 bombers fly a plane into a building they are evil.

The idea of doing horrible things in the name of obedience to God, just doesn't fly with me.

It is more of an excuse to get away with horrible things.

I hold to the idea that the commandments that are "hard" are the ones that bring more kindness, holiness, love, and care into the world. NOT the ones that are cruel and hurtful.

~dancer!

To be clear, I don't think there is a God/man/being commanding people to do anything....

[_Seven]

Further to beastie's comment above, here is some more from Daynes's article:

From the 1850s to the 1880s, then, the number of women receiving their temple blessings exceeded the number of men who did. Thus, in the marriage market containing only those desiring temple ordinances, men were at a decided advantage--or they would have been so in a monogamous system. Under such a system, women who wished to be sealed to a mate would have experienced a marriage squeeze; that is, they would have encountered a scarcity of endowed males.

In short, a Mormon woman who wished to be married in the temple would have had reduced chances of such a marriage under a monogamous system. The marriage squeeze against endowed women eased slightly in the 1870s, but there still would have been a conspicuous shortage of men (Daynes, "Single Men in Manti," 92).

Were women during that time period getting endowments without an engagement of marriage soon after? We know Emma wasn't allowed to get her endowments before she allowed Joseph to take plural wives. I am wondering if single women were getting endowments like modern day women (usually missionaries, older single women) do today.

If they were not , then the reason for the higher number of endowed women makes sense-they were entering plural marriages and would therefore exceed the number of males receiving temple blessings.

[_huckelberry]

Hi Dancer, I hope it is not entirely hidden how many of my comments above were ironic. I certainly agree with the things you have been saying about the true hard commandments being the ones that bring more kindness, holiness. love. and care into the world.

We can trade that comment back and forth just because it is worth repeating.

I thought my comment about the sort of happiness brought by the fall was an irony worth at least a chuckle and a second thought. I woke this morning thinking from that point on my comments became hopeless narrow. I do think people create the false kind of hard commandment in part out of hypocrasy and to keep themselves occupied so that their hypocrasy is less conscious. Sometimes they just get carried away in a false hope.


I find myself thinking that the problem is not confined to just extreme cases but could apply to me and people better and more caring than me as well. I could use the criticismt as a way of evaluating projects that I may be eager to sacrifice for. Are they worth the sacrifice or are they something less worthy? I think all projects require sacrifice but that does not mean all sacrifice is worthwhile?. But do we always know?

I suppose my own total disbelief that polygamy is a project worth the sacrifice does not prevent some other people from estimating the other way around. Quite a few people seemed willing to buyinto the project.

I was wondering if the problem of how to seperate calls to sacrifice which are empty from ones that are excellent investiments could be clarified by looking at other examples. Obviously you are thinking of a few. Joshua and 9-11.
Can you think of a better method than simply attempting a real world cost benfit comparison?

(ps if I was sympathetic to certain Islamic goals 9-11 looks rational and smart. Joshua I find much more difficult to judge. It is hard to tell what the real situaltion was or if there even was a real situation)

[_beastie]

Were women during that time period getting endowments without an engagement of marriage soon after? We know Emma wasn't allowed to get her endowments before she allowed Joseph to take plural wives. I am wondering if single women were getting endowments like modern day women (usually missionaries, older single women) do today.

If they were not , then the reason for the higher number of endowed women makes sense-they were entering plural marriages and would therefore exceed the number of males receiving temple blessings.

Of course!!! Brilliant, seven, brilliant.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Huck...

Ahhh thanks for clarifying for me. :-)

Sometimes I am just not sure how to take things!

And yes the "fall " comment did give me a chuckle!

Warm wishes,

~dancer~