charity wrote:You think you can say anything you want about dead people who aren't here to defend themselves. I think you should get back some of what you are so willing to dish out.
My statements about Brigham's wives, for instance, are based on his ex-wife's book. Of course, she's just an anti-mormon liar, and charity knows better than her what went on there even though Ann Eliza was there to witness it and charity wasn't. Of course.
What about the testimonies of Joseph Smith's wives who said they've had sex with him? Or the story with Fanny Alger which was referred to as a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair"? Of course, it's easier for you to think I'm projecting.
And before you make a psychological assessment you should know the psychology you are basing your assessment on. In this case, you don't, so your assessment has no basis in fact.
Oh, don't I? I guess I'm making no sense when I hypothesize that indifference to sex or inability to achieve orgasm don't exactly help in the bonding between spouses department or feeling passionate, romantic love and desire for each other. If no romantic love is involved and the relationship is based more on other factors, such as mutual respect and common goals in bringing forth children, for instance, it would be much easier to accept the idea of your husband being married and eternally having sex with other women. Interestingly, Zina D. Jacobs Smith Young said: "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."
Yes, I never get tired of pulling ideas out of my butt. In fact, that's all I ever do.
Lighten up. I thought you would find Mark Twain at least a little humerous.
I like Mark Twain, but he has nothing to do whatsoever with this discussion.
I hope all married people enjoy their sex lives. And your descriptions of anything Brigham Young tought or did are so far from correct. Harmony is saying on another post, how people on this board don't m ake judgements and assessments about people. You stop doing that about the prophets, and I won't hold your feet to the fire.
How are they far from correct? As I have said, I'm basing my opinions on an account of an eye-witness. And she's not the only one who's ever said that BY had favorite wives he slept with often and wives who fell out of favor after he married someone else.
Sorry for the gender confusion. I didn't think a woman would use a disrespectful representation of the female for an avatar.
Talk about inablility to understand symbolism. It's a symbolic representation of the disrespectful treatment that women have received from society throughout history that reduces them to their reproductive systems. The LDS Church is continuing to contribute. And I think it's great art. Even Chaos from MAD liked it despite asking me to remove it. To avoid offending people like you, I'm sure.
Okay. so you are female. And since you have a husband, ask him if he would like it if you were to hug, kiss, etc. attractive males, and then try to convince him it was non-sexual. If he would accept that, he must be very naïve.
I've hugged my male friends in front of him and I don't think he suspects any dirty intentions on my part there. I think that tabooing any physical contact or interaction with everyone of the opposite sex except your spouse after you are married is where projecting repressed sexual desires really takes place. But that's beyond the point because I was talking about two single people who feel attraction towards each other kissing and hugging. I guess I should have made it explicitly clear that I mean one single person with SSA hugging/kissing/complimenting another single person with SSA, not a married person. Silly me to think it's understandable it's implied.
Of course, people have prejudices. It is part of our hard wiring. A way to protect our own group and genetic pool. We have to work really hard not to think in us vs them terms. But you will find very few churches or other groups who have taught as consistently against bias than we have. Joseph Smith urged religious tolerance. (And got back none in return.) And if you want to talk about racial bias, try looking at southern churches to this day. Segregated for the most part.
The LDS Church was segregated in terms of who was allowed to go to the temple and who wasn't until fairly recently. It also disapproves of intermarriage. Of course, the excuse given now is that you are more likely to be compatible with someone from your own racial background *rolls eyes*. If background mattered so much, why did americans marry British converts during the time BY was threatening everyone who "mixed their seed with the seed of Cain" with death on the spot?
Saying "All the critics of the Book of Mormon will eventually be proven wrong, so we can be pretty open-minded" is not indicative of any bias. At all. After all, you identify yourself as an open-minded person.
charity wrote:Agency yes. Consequences of those choices, no.
And what would be the super-harmful consequences of two people being legally married if they are already living together anyway? All the excuses given about harful influence on society and children I've heard are pretty lame.
Do you complain that the existence of the 10 commandments violates people's beliefs? Gosh, don't steal. Now, isn't that limiting all those people who want to take your property? And how about the commandment not to committ adultery. What a put down for all those people who want to cheat on their spouses. I don't see a difference.
I see a difference. An individual is sovereign of their body and property. Their consent is required for manipulating either. In the case of infidelity, cheating is harmful because it violates the agreement between the spouses and betrays trust. I do think that consensual open marriages are ethical, however. There is a difference.
Jesus spoke against homosexuality Himself.
He did? Where?