In other words, while lots of guys are OK with polygamy, the idea that their wives can be sleeping with other men feels uncomfortable.
Yes, I guess for some it takes the sex to make them uncomfortable, but really - shouldn't they already be uncomfortable with just the idea that a church leader TOOK another man's wife for his own, even it it's just for eternities????
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
In other words, while lots of guys are OK with polygamy, the idea that their wives can be sleeping with other men feels uncomfortable.
Yes, I guess for some it takes the sex to make them uncomfortable, but really - shouldn't they already be uncomfortable with just the idea that a church leader TOOK another man's wife for his own, even it it's just for eternities????
Marriage traditionally doesn't exist in the absence of sex. There's no evidence that Joseph Smith's concept of marriage was any different.
The rank and file of LDS church membership doesn't generally realize that Joseph Smith took anyone else's wives to his own. Many who do eventually learn it are so attuned to justifying anything they believe a "prophet of God" has done that they will end up defending it, even if it bothers them personally. For others it is a litmus test of just how far they can be pushed to believe someone is really authorized to speak for God or act in his behalf.
Charity appears to be the type of person that even if she were happily married to her husband, if the person she believed to be the prophet of God came to her and said that she was to become his wife, she'd comply. She'd let God sort out the details later. Apparently many of the women who "married" Joseph Smith were the same.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Yes, I guess for some it takes the sex to make them uncomfortable, but really - shouldn't they already be uncomfortable with just the idea that a church leader TOOK another man's wife for his own, even it it's just for eternities????
Well, yes! (smile)
One would think that indeed the idea of a church leader taking another man's wife would be problematic but I get the sense that for some men, the thought of a stake president or general authority coming over and sleeping with their wives behind their backs is more disconcering.
I could be wrong... it is just a general feeling I get reading the posts of some apologists. It is as if they don't want to entertain the possibility of the reality of their wives being coerced by a church leader. So long as the sealing is some sort of nebulous, "we don't know much about it/God will make it all work out" activity, they are OK but if it means their wives are sleeping with other more powerful men it becomes difficult.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
charity wrote:A genetic testing lab just released data that according to DNA testing, Mosiah Hancock and Oliver Buell, the darlings of the polyandry crowd, are definately NOT Joseph Smith's offspring.
Charity, a question.
Which would be more disturbing to you? To learn that Joseph Smith had sex with his wives? Or to learn that he didn't?
It's unclear to me why anyone defending Joseph Smith or the church he organized would think sexless marriage was a good thing, or be celebrating any possible evidence that might indicate that his relationships with "wives" was entirely platonic.
It is none of my business which of the sealings were dynastic and which were marriages. I would not be upset either direction. Marriages and marriage relations are between the people involved. I think everyone should just butt out of private lives.
the road to hana wrote: Charity appears to be the type of person that even if she were happily married to her husband, if the person she believed to be the prophet of God came to her and said that she was to become his wife, she'd comply. She'd let God sort out the details later. Apparently many of the women who "married" Joseph Smith were the same.
It is funny that so many of you who deny supernatural experiences believe in mind reading. You read God's mind, Joseph Smith's mind, even mine. LOL.
You have entirely neglected the repeated evidence of people, men and women, who sought out their own revelation from God before they acted on revelations which were told to them.
If I had a revelation from God, even if it was a difficult one to follow, such as Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, I hope I would be strong enough to do as God commanded. That is the test.
charity wrote:It is none of my business which of the sealings were dynastic and which were marriages. I would not be upset either direction. Marriages and marriage relations are between the people involved. I think everyone should just butt out of private lives.
*blink* Now that, my friends, is compartmentalization!
charity wrote:A genetic testing lab just released data that according to DNA testing, Mosiah Hancock and Oliver Buell, the darlings of the polyandry crowd, are definately NOT Joseph Smith's offspring.
Charity, a question.
Which would be more disturbing to you? To learn that Joseph Smith had sex with his wives? Or to learn that he didn't?
It's unclear to me why anyone defending Joseph Smith or the church he organized would think sexless marriage was a good thing, or be celebrating any possible evidence that might indicate that his relationships with "wives" was entirely platonic.
It is none of my business which of the sealings were dynastic and which were marriages. I would not be upset either direction. Marriages and marriage relations are between the people involved. I think everyone should just butt out of private lives.
So you are in favor of same sex marriages?
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
Yes, I guess for some it takes the sex to make them uncomfortable, but really - shouldn't they already be uncomfortable with just the idea that a church leader TOOK another man's wife for his own, even it it's just for eternities????
Well, yes! (smile)
One would think that indeed the idea of a church leader taking another man's wife would be problematic but I get the sense that for some men, the thought of a stake president or general authority coming over and sleeping with their wives behind their backs is more disconcering.
I could be wrong... it is just a general feeling I get reading the posts of some apologists. It is as if they don't want to entertain the possibility of the reality of their wives being coerced by a church leader. So long as the sealing is some sort of nebulous, "we don't know much about it/God will make it all work out" activity, they are OK but if it means their wives are sleeping with other more powerful men it becomes difficult.
~dancer~
There was a polygamy thread on MAD about 6 months ago where an apologist argued that it was the right of powerful (read: better men!) to take as many women as he could. Those less worthy men just would have to suck it up. I was stunned and was all over that thread. Only one other apologist really chimed in slightly.
This apologist claimed that women were truly just the nobler species and deserved the best of a male. I was stunned and came back with data that showed that abuse in relationships were practically on par for the sexes and went head to head with all his points. I couldn't believe that anyone would really believe that in a free society that there should be countless men that went without wives. Appears to me that this would break down the social structure of society. Yet, this male apologist was all for it. Odd. I think I went in and deleted all my posts though in a fit. Oh well.
How is one to know if one is being deceived, though? The Lafferty brothers felt they were acting on God's command in committing two murders. Is there any point you would draw the line, Charity? At what point would you start to wonder if you weren't being deceived? You are alluding to killing your own child on God's orders in your post, are you not?
Insert ironic quote from fellow board member here.