DiscussMormonism.com

Pahoran wrote:I particularly like this ringing declaration:

I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes.

Now I don't expect Ms Colvin to know this, because she's a journalist, not a historian. Deep thinking and careful analysis of past events is not what she does; glib quips and flippant headlines are her oeuvre. But the fact remains that Plural marriage, throughout Mormon history, was at all times a deeply religious principle, and no less for Joseph than anyone else. The fact that he worried about it constantly, it gave him no end of trouble, and still he persisted with it, really ought to tell her something.

At least, it might, if only she had the intellectual horsepower to manage it.

But instead, she goes with the utterly discredited "Old Joe's libido" explanation. Which actually explains very little, and leaves far too many unanswered questions.

But what else should we expect of someone who's not only a journalist, but a toxic feminist?

Note that remark about "spiritual abuse." It's a regular theme of hers. Read it again. Is she saying that Joseph was guilty of "spiritual abuse?" Actually no although if you asked her, she'd probably say that he was. No, the "spiritual abuse" to which she objects consists in "maintain[ing] a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith" instead of surrendering to her preferred "Lothario" narrative of Mormon polygamy. Did you get that? It's "spiritual abuse" to disagree with her, so shut up.

Read her description of her discussion with her Priests/Laurels Sunday School class. Hands up who really believes that a class of teenagers came up with those expressions of cynicism and disgust without any prompting from their teacher?

I don't.

The comments are also instructive. She smiles benignly upon the most outrageous anti-Mormon propaganda. "Cult mind control?" Really? But a number of other comments have been deleted; clearly there was a commenter who disagreed with Ms Colvin's position, so she silenced him, as she habitually does. But the most damning comment comes, not from anyone who disagrees with her, but from "Rev_Lowery," someone who supports her wholeheartedly:

Spoken like someone who really does not believe in their professed religion.

You sure got that right, Rev.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:I particularly like this ringing declaration:

I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes.

Now I don't expect Ms Colvin to know this, because she's a journalist, not a historian. Deep thinking and careful analysis of past events is not what she does; glib quips and flippant headlines are her oeuvre. But the fact remains that Plural marriage, throughout Mormon history, was at all times a deeply religious principle, and no less for Joseph than anyone else. The fact that he worried about it constantly, it gave him no end of trouble, and still he persisted with it, really ought to tell her something.

If Warren Jeffs kept saying that he didn't really want to practice polygamy would you just believe him? To be fair, it would tell me something. It would tell me that is how gulliable Warren Jeffs thinks other people are.

At least, it might, if only she had the intellectual horsepower to manage it.

So if Warren Jeffs played the "reluctant polygamist" card and we didn't take it at face value, that would mean that we're stupid?

But instead, she goes with the utterly discredited "Old Joe's libido" explanation. Which actually explains very little, and leaves far too many unanswered questions.

I don't think libido explains all of it. But it certainly played a role in my opinion. But it reads to me like a man high on his power.

But what else should we expect of someone who's not only a journalist, but a toxic feminist?

Using the fact that she is a journalist to try to undercut her credibility makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

Note that remark about "spiritual abuse." It's a regular theme of hers. Read it again. Is she saying that Joseph was guilty of "spiritual abuse?" Actually no although if you asked her, she'd probably say that he was. No, the "spiritual abuse" to which she objects consists in "maintain[ing] a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith" instead of surrendering to her preferred "Lothario" narrative of Mormon polygamy. Did you get that? It's "spiritual abuse" to disagree with her, so shut up.

Read her description of her discussion with her Priests/Laurels Sunday School class. Hands up who really believes that a class of teenagers came up with those expressions of cynicism and disgust without any prompting from their teacher?

I don't.

For believers: Do you know how you react when you hear other non-Mormon religious leaders claims that God gave them multiple sex partners? I'm sure you don't believe them. I'm sure you don't even entertain the possibility. Well some people react the same way to Joseph Smith and all his colorful explanations. Incredulously.

The comments are also instructive. She smiles benignly upon the most outrageous anti-Mormon propaganda. "Cult mind control?" Really? But a number of other comments have been deleted; clearly there was a commenter who disagreed with Ms Colvin's position, so she silenced him, as she habitually does. But the most damning comment comes, not from anyone who disagrees with her, but from "Rev_Lowery," someone who supports her wholeheartedly:

Spoken like someone who really does not believe in their professed religion.

You sure got that right, Rev.

Saying someone does not believe in their professed religion isn't supporting them "wholeheartedly."

Regards,
Pahoran

Sammy Jankins wrote:I love that Pahoran criticizes the moderation policy on her blog comments, while posting on a board that has banned people from even reading their board.

Now I don't expect Ms Colvin to know this, because she's a journalist, not a historian. Deep thinking and careful analysis of past events is not what she does; glib quips and flippant headlines are her oeuvre. But the fact remains that Plural marriage, throughout Mormon history, was at all times a deeply religious principle, and no less for Joseph than anyone else. The fact that he worried about it constantly, it gave him no end of trouble, and still he persisted with it, really ought to tell her something.

canpakes wrote:Pahoran complains of Colvin's lack of 'intellectual horsepower' while aptly displaying his own critical deficit in that regard, given that he would apparently blindly follow anything that a simple man (Smith) would have claimed was a command from God.

Irony at its best.

son of Ishmael wrote:

canpakes wrote:Pahoran complains of Colvin's lack of 'intellectual horsepower' while aptly displaying his own critical deficit in that regard, given that he would apparently blindly follow anything that a simple man (Smith) would have claimed was a command from God.

Irony at its best.

Yeah I was thinking that when I read it. Here is a OP about how apostates are sanctimonious and yet his comments reek of it.

The Erotic Apologist wrote:Is Pahoran the one who lives in New Zealand or am I thinking of somebody else?