The Nehor wrote:I find it telling that the first thing you reach for is how telling it is that I mentioned critic's fixation on sex as the key to understanding Jeffs and Smith. Why not bring up something else?
When you have a substantive criticism, I'll be here to read it.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
And this is why all of the children were taken. I say this because of all the people whinging and wringing their hands and getting all offended about how wrong it was for all those children to be wrenched from the arms of their loving mothers.
I'm going to say this again, and I'm going to put it in bold text, because it's very important that people understand it.
The CPS investigators in Texas went into the compound with probable cause to suspect that a certain girl was being abused. While there, they discovered tons and tons of evidence that basically every girl child was either already in a state of having been sexually abused, or in imminent or future danger of being abused, and that those boys who were there were being groomed to be, themselves, abusers when they were old enough. The evidence was that all of the adults in the compound, as a community, were in on this, and were either perpetrators, or accessories to the abuse. All of these loving mothers, and all of these fathers, represented either an immediate or future danger to these children, or willingly served as accessories or contributors to these acts of abuse. That is why the State of Texas removed the children from their custody.
Now, any parents whose lawyers can convince the state that they aren't abusers, or accessories to abuse, can get their children back. I'm not counting on that being a very large number, at least in the very near future.
For anyone on this board, or lurking on this board and reading this, if you believe that it was wrong for the state to remove the children, and if you think a gross injustice has been committed, and so forth, please go back and re-read the originally linked article about how the majority of young girl children who had passed puberty at the YFZ ranch either were pregnant, or had already been pregnant. And then re-read what I posted above in bold, and then think about it for a few minutes.
Texas is doing what Utah and Arizona should have done ages ago, but didn't have the balls. People can believe whatever batsh*t crazy thing they want. But they may not impose certain practices on children, and Texas isn't having it.
Don't Mess With Texas. Did Warren Jeffs not get the memo?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
in my opinion, the early LDS church dealt with the excess of males by sending them on missions, sometimes repeatedly. This not only reduced the number of males in the community, but also had the benefit of the missionaries bringing back more females. (was it Heber C. Kimball who told the returning missionaries to not pick any of the females until they got back here, to give the other men a chance at the pretty ones?)
This is where the rubber hits the road. Do people who support religious freedom believe that freedom should extend to a practice that institutionalizes statutory rape?
Is a 14 year old capable of making that decision?
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.
Just to be clear I do not remotely think you justify rape. :-) I know you abhor it.
A couple of points.
Joseph Smith "married" (yeah right) several underage girls, including at least one who was fourteen.
Joseph Smith claimed the purpose of polygamy was to "raise up seed".... ie, impregnate girls and women.
The D&C 132 discusses the practice in some detail including the taking of "virgins"and who owns them.
Joseph Smith lied about his behavior to everyone but his closest compatriots, claimed he was engaging in the practice like the prophets of old, denied the practice of polygamy, told the girls involved to keep it quiet, and made that famous statement, "some things wrong in one situation are right in another", (or something like that). Now, if all the girls he "married" were just part of some spiritual, next life union thing, there would be no need whatsoever to keep everything hushed. Helen Mar would not have written she felt like a lamb going to the slaughter. There would be no need at all to sneak around. Emma would not have been disgusted with Joseph Smith's behavior, and Joseph Smith would not have felt a need to destroy the printing press to prevent his behavior from going public.
In other words, even without any evidence (which of course there is a significant amount in my opinion), it seems safe to assume Joseph Smith didn't coerce and convince all those girls to become his consorts as some sort of game.
If Joseph Smith wasn't engaging in behavior that was less than decent no one would have cared and his whole life (and death) would have been different.
More to the point of this thread.... when I take into my heart these young girls who have been raped by older men, children whose bodies have been sexually used for the pleasure of men, my heart is sick. I can't help but be reminded that the early leaders of the LDS church behaved exactly the same.
It is revolting.
:-(
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Gazelam wrote:A brief study of the two mens lives is all it takes to show the vast differences. If in no other way, than to just look at the application of the doctrine.
Joseph elevated everyone around him, he doled out responsibilities and activly sought to educate and strengthen everyone in the community around him.
Warren Jeffs did the opposite.
It depends on what you mean by elevated. Joseph Smith made women chattel, and he encouraged his closet acolytes to do the same. He transformed otherwise (presumably) faithful spouses into rutting studs who competed in some unwholesome practice of spreading their sperm to as many chattel women as possible. He, in effect, transformed sensual humans into sexual animals and contributed to the dehumanization of women in the process.
Your praise of this low life offends the moral sensibility.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Just to be clear I do not remotely think you justify rape. :-) I know you abhor it.
A couple of points.
Joseph Smith "married" (yeah right) several underage girls, including at least one who was fourteen.
Joseph Smith claimed the purpose of polygamy was to "raise up seed".... ie, impregnate girls and women.
The D&C 132 discusses the practice in some detail including the taking of "virgins"and who owns them.
Joseph Smith lied about his behavior to everyone but his closest compatriots, claimed he was engaging in the practice like the prophets of old, denied the practice of polygamy, told the girls involved to keep it quiet, and made that famous statement, "some things wrong in one situation are right in another", (or something like that). Now, if all the girls he "married" were just part of some spiritual, next life union thing, there would be no need whatsoever to keep everything hushed. Helen Mar would not have written she felt like a lamb going to the slaughter. There would be no need at all to sneak around. Emma would not have been disgusted with Joseph Smith's behavior, and Joseph Smith would not have felt a need to destroy the printing press to prevent his behavior from going public.
In other words, even without any evidence (which of course there is a significant amount in my opinion), it seems safe to assume Joseph Smith didn't coerce and convince all those girls to become his consorts as some sort of game.
If Joseph Smith wasn't engaging in behavior that was less than decent no one would have cared and his whole life (and death) would have been different.
More to the point of this thread.... when I take into my heart these young girls who have been raped by older men, children whose bodies have been sexually used for the pleasure of men, my heart is sick. I can't help but be reminded that the early leaders of the LDS church behaved exactly the same.
It is revolting.
:-(
~dancer~
Not to mention that Joseph Smith abused his position of power to coerce/manipulate trusting women into his bed, including teenage girls under his foster care.
Yes, I think that Joseph Smith was very much like Jeffs. The only difference, Gaz, is that you have a lifelong emotional attachment to the former but not the latter. You can see Jeffs in an objective light, but your prior devotion to Smith clouds the otherwise good sense you have and your sense of moral propriety.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Jeffs came to power by brute force. Joseph Smith charmed his way to power.
Hey Scottie,
I'm not sure about this. What "brute force" was there?
Have you heard followers share their thoughts about WJ? Those I have heard describe him as the most loving man, Christlike, gentle, "when in his presence I feel like I am in the presence of Christ) (or something like that).
I think these followers do not believe their is any force at all.
They like many followers of certain religions are unaware of how society, beliefs, and circumstances can make true choice virtually impossible.
For example, if child molester sees a child and tells them he is going to kill his family if the child doesn't get in the car, he could say the child had a choice. No force at all. :-(
Similarly, when there is extraordinary pressure to behave in a certain way to do otherwise is virtually impossible, there is in fact little choice about the "decision". (Think Helen Mar here).
OK, this has nothing to do with your comment, I'm just rambling on here. (smile)
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Church history does have an ugly background when it comes to "lost boys".
As Beastie mentioned, typically men were sent on missions, etc. to "get them out of the way" of the pretty brides.
Also, I remember reading of an incident where, during Brigham Young's era, a bishop wanted to marry a 16 year old girl who was being courted by a young man around her age. The girl was in love with the young man, and had no interest in the bishop.
The bishop approached the young man, and told him to back off. The young man refused, claiming that he intended to marry the young woman.
The bishop sent a posse of men to castrate the young man. The young man was castrated and went insane.
My understanding was the Brigham Young knew of the incident and turned a blind eye in regards to the actions of the bishop and his posse.
If that is the case, Brigham, that bishop, and anyone else involved better be rotting in hell. If they're not, and there is a hereafter, don't put it past me to find them, wherever they are, and castrate them all myself.
As far as the Texas incident....Thank God for Texans who have balls! This should have been done a long time ago but the Utah and Colorado police were too wussy to act!
It depends on what you mean by elevated. Joseph Smith made women chattel, and he encouraged his closet acolytes to do the same. He transformed otherwise (presumably) faithful spouses into rutting studs who competed in some unwholesome practice of spreading their sperm to as many chattel women as possible. He, in effect, transformed sensual humans into sexual animals and contributed to the dehumanization of women in the process.
Your praise of this low life offends the moral sensibility.
Excellent post Guy!
Polygamy rather than an exalted, eternal, holy practice is the exact opposite. Rather than moving humans toward more care, concern, intimacy, holiness, and an evolving and deepening love, it completely turns humans into animals; males into sperm donors who have virtually no emotional connection to women, and women into chattel who are considered nothing more than a body to screw.
It truly is a return to the primitive and animalistic.
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
truth dancer wrote:Joseph Smith lied about his behavior to everyone but his closest compatriots, claimed he was engaging in the practice like the prophets of old, denied the practice of polygamy, told the girls involved to keep it quiet, and made that famous statement, "some things wrong in one situation are right in another", (or something like that). Now, if all the girls he "married" were just part of some spiritual, next life union thing, there would be no need whatsoever to keep everything hushed. Helen Mar would not have written she felt like a lamb going to the slaughter. There would be no need at all to sneak around. Emma would not have been disgusted with Joseph Smith's behavior, and Joseph Smith would not have felt a need to destroy the printing press to prevent his behavior from going public.
Excellent points, TD. Makes the whole notion of chaste polygamy utterly incredible.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”