Chewbarker cleans house!

[Moksha]

What is "whimsical divorce," I wonder?

I think it occurs after a "whimsical marriage" performed by BYU students wanting a good "soak".




by the way, future Sic et Non posts will look like this:

Philip Leaning DanielPeterson • 6 hours ago
Yep, me too. Nothing to report.

[Moksha]

If the TBM posters at Sic et Non knew for sure who
poster Butthead was, they would be much nicer to him.

[Doctor Scratch]

My goodness, that thread is delivering all kinds solid gold comments:

When will Bevis turn up from the sewer, and, among other things, do a little dance. Butthead indeed.

Not that I believe that Joseph Smith established polygyny just to have sex more frequently, but let's assume that he did for just a moment. I did not realize the a male being sexually attracted to more than one woman is deviant. Historically, polygyny is not unusual and is still a common practice in much of the world.

The assumption I granted can certainly be challenged. Religious men visiting prostitutes was a rather common 19th century practice. It was cheaper than taking a second wife, particularly if sex was the reason for additional wives.

I realize the many women don't want their husbands sealed to another women but it is not universal. My mother was not bothered by the idea; my father was.

You are upvoting your own post with your alter egos. That is disgusting and dirty. So it is good, coming from you, to call the Prophet names.

...and also those who see nothing at all that wrong about having, on the side, a mistress or two, or who practice serial polygamy by frequent divorces, or by what are called affairs. It is not uncommon for people in the Celebrity spotlight to be into this sort of thing without a semblance of shame.

That's the crucial point right there--the one about shame. How does Midgley feel about this? B. Wilson is telling us that it's perfectly natural for a man to be "sexually attracted to more than one woman." Okay--but that's not what we're talking about, is it? Midgley--and Butthead, for that matter--are talking about *wives* and "what are called affairs." Sex, in other words--not mere "attraction." The key difference is that the desire is acted upon. Here's the question that I so badly want to ask Midgley: does he thank that "people in the Celebrity spotlight" *should* feel shame? And if so, why? Is it because they're engaging in these activities outside the approval of the LDS Church? What is it that makes "serial polygamy" okay within Mormonism, but something "shameful" outside of it?

Seriously: I would be very interested in hearing the Mopologists' answer to this one. How do they imagine that Pres. Nelson's plural marriage is going to play out in the Added Upon version of the afterlife? Will this guarantee that Nelson will have a higher status? If you are a God, can you just give yourself as many spouses as you would like? And if that's true, then doesn't that make the LDS polygamous sealing policy irrelevant? The fact that the policy exists would seem to indicate that, unless you go through that kind of sealing, you don't get to have multiple wives in the Celestial Kingdom. Or, is the idea that, if you've achieved Eternal Salvation in that sense, then you're welcome to go ahead and marry the single women who are there?

[Gadianton]

It's nuts the lengths Mopologetics will go to justify their founder's primal drives. God prepared a way for his servants to satisfy their desires for a threesome within the confines of holy Biblical order. I'm sorry, these guys are all total losers.

[kairos]

As non-Mormon Tina Turner stated emphatically when asked about “polygamy”( that is sex with lots of women by one dude) - “What’s Love got to do with it?”
by the way Miss Turner never joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints though she was an avowed expert on sex in societies.
She is well known for her NYT very best seller about her life with Ike Turner titled “Getting Down! or How to have wild sex when a guitar is flying over your head”.

[Philo Sofee]

I think it quite remarkable that from 1847-1918 there was decided (and allowed) prostitution in Salt Lake City because it was economically important for them to help build their city and they needed funds. This, at least how I remember from reading years ago Jeffrey Nichols eyepopping text "Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power," Univ. Chicago Press, 2002.
And the women who ran the love shows acquired enormous power in many respects as business people, even having serious political sway and clout. Businessmen and politicians kept them going, wherein several women became seriously financially rich in the truest sense of the word.

[Bought Yahoo]

I think it quite remarkable that from 1847-1918 there was decided (and allowed) prostitution in Salt Lake City because it was economically important for them to help build their city and they needed funds. This, at least how I remember from reading years ago Jeffrey Nichols eyepopping text "Prostitution, Polygamy, and Power," Univ. Chicago Press, 2002.
And the women who ran the love shows acquired enormous power in many respects as business people, even having serious political sway and clout. Businessmen and politicians kept them going, wherein several women became seriously financially rich in the truest sense of the word.

You're wrong. There was a national movement to decriminalize prostitution in the hopes it would just disappear. It had nothing to do with civic financing.

SLC built its "cribs" for its ladies.

Didn't disappear.