I think Charity views and others view the idea of if they had to share their husband with another woman that it shows some sort of true love and faith and devotion and sacrifice to be able to do so. But you have to ask them.
And what sacrifice to the men make in return? How do they show their love, faith, and devotion?
By screwing multiple women and ignoring their duty to nurture their wives and children?
You do understand this is not my position?
Yes, this was clear from the context. I was remarking on the perspective without attributing it to you. Sorry if this was not clear.
I find it to be a stupid rationale for letting men treat women (and children) like chattel.
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 ..."
Half-serious question: how do men justify having more than one child? Doesn't the second child necessarily make them ignore part of their duties to the first? How many kids is too many? With that in mind, how many wives is too many (for safety's sake, I recommend that you state the numer is greater than 0 ;) )?
Personally I find any comparison of the husband/wife relationship to a parent/child relationship really odd.
However, to answer your question, How many wives is too many? More than one.
How many children should a man father? No more than he can adequately parent. Don't make me look it up but some research suggests that today for the average couple two children (2.4 If I recall correctly), is about the max a couple can ideally parent, more than that and the care begins to dwindle. (Again, this is the average couple).
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
As well as LDS men only looking at this in the abstract, in some distant "next life", I also wonder if they believe, due to their righteousness, that they would be the ones TAKING wives and children rather than being taken FROM.
Going by LDS history, that is a serious error. Only the "top dogs" were doing the TAKING. Righteous LDS men were being taken FROM because they had 'lesser' callings. The modern LDS church is more egalitarian, generally, and teaches idea that church janitor can be the equivalent of the prophet in the next life, in terms of reaching godhood, is he is just as righteous. That wasn't the attitude in the early church. Men with higher callings were viewed as more worthy, and that's why they got to TAKE.
Also, there was another way in which a woman could leave a man-- if the woman preferred a man higher in authority and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up. There is no bill of divorce required, in [this] case it is right in the sight of God." - Conference Reports, 8 Oct. 1861, reported by George D. Watt, LDS archives; also found in the journal of James Beck, 8 Oct. 1861, LDS archives, as cited in Campbell and Campbell, New Mormon History, ed. Quinn, p 195 n 45
On January 27, 1844 her only surviving child, Philofreen, also died. At this time, Sylvia was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.
What Josephine really said was this, picking up from "told me".
Quote:
"told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church"
Note that the sentence did not end at "Smith," as Beastie originally posted, but at "Church." [I should also point out that Josephine was wrong on the details; Joseph was sealed to Sylvia before Lyon was out of the church. Just another example as to why Josephine is not reliable here.]
Really incredible. There's enough fudge in Beastie's presentation of this evidence to make Willie Wonka blush. It appears that neither Josephine or Beastie are particularly reliable, but for perhaps very different reasons.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 18, 2008 4:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
We've already covered this, droopy. It doesn't make any difference in the meaning of the article, as even other fervent defenders of the faith admit (see FARMS article).
If you're going to defend bob's proposition, you are going to have to explain things he's refused to explain, such as why, if all Sylvia's affidavit meant was that Josephine was spiritually sealed to Joseph Smith as his daughter, did she single out Josephine when ALL her children would be Joseph Smith', and why do researchers also ignore all the children who would be Joseph Smith's due to the sealings. Clearly, everyone except for a very small group of people interpret Sylvia's statement to mean that Joseph Smith was the biological father of Joseph Smith.
The fact that we are even arguing this point demonstrates how desperate you are.
Bob and droopy, I have a question for both of you:
If it were proven, through DNA, that Josephine was the biological daughter of Joseph Smith, what would that mean to you? Would it alter your opinion of Joseph Smith's prophet-hood? Would you feel that he was justified in having sex with Sylvia because he was married to her? Would you think he had sinned? I really want an answer to this question.
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.
On January 27, 1844 her only surviving child, Philofreen, also died. At this time, Sylvia was eight months pregnant with her fourth child, Josephine Rosetta Lyon. Josephine later wrote, “Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days were numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from me and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith”.
What Josephine really said was this, picking up from "told me".
Quote:
"told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church"
Note that the sentence did not end at "Smith," as Beastie originally posted, but at "Church." [I should also point out that Josephine was wrong on the details; Joseph was sealed to Sylvia before Lyon was out of the church. Just another example as to why Josephine is not reliable here.]
Really incredible. There's enough fudge in Beastie's presentation of this evidence to make Willie Wonka blush. It appears that neither Josephine or Beastie are particularly reliable, but for perhaps very different reasons.
Coggins7 has evidently been pupating; he now emerges as Droopy. The point of this tactic eludes me, though I suppose I should be grateful for the disappearance of the blankly staring avatar associated with his larval stage.
Goodness knows who this post is addressed to. It simply repeats points already made by rcrocket, which have already (in the opinion of all other posts apart from rcrocket, so far as I can see) been shown to be just a little silly.
Coggins7 has evidently been pupating; he now emerges as Droopy. The point of this tactic eludes me, though I suppose I should be grateful for the disappearance of the blankly staring avatar associated with his larval stage.
Goodness knows who this post is addressed to. It simply repeats points already made by rcrocket, which have already (in the opinion of all other posts apart from rcrocket, so far as I can see) been shown to be just a little silly.
I think this man is talking to himself.
What rc showed was that Beastie, with a slight change of punctuation, and the convenient editing of the statement in question, substantially altered the potential meaning of that statement. As rc pointed out, to an unbiased mind conversant with the LDS theology involved, the potential meaning of that statement would not be at all difficult to tease out. To biased demagogues seeking the conclusions at which they have already arrived, the situation is different.
Beastie engages in literary high jinks reminiscent of the worst of the populist EV polemical literature of the past several decades.
Last edited by Guest on Sun May 18, 2008 4:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Coggins7 has evidently been pupating; he now emerges as Droopy. The point of this tactic eludes me, though I suppose I should be grateful for the disappearance of the blankly staring avatar associated with his larval stage.
Goodness knows who this post is addressed to. It simply repeats points already made by rcrocket, which have already (in the opinion of all other posts apart from rcrocket, so far as I can see) been shown to be just a little silly.
I think this man is talking to himself.
What rc showed was that Beastie, with a slight change of punctuation, and the convenient editing of the statement in question, substantially altered to potential meaning of that statement. As rc pointed out, to an unbiased mind conversant with the LDS theology involved, the potential meaning of that statement would not be at all difficult to tease out. To biased demagogues seeking the conclusions at which they have already arrived, the situation is different.
Beastie engages in literary high jinks reminiscent of the worst of the populist EV polemical literature of the past several decades.
beastie's purported hijinks notwithstanding, how do you address the issue of a woman giving a deathbed confession to her daughter who is either sleeping with more than one man or lying?
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
beastie's purported hijinks notwithstanding, how do you address the issue of a woman giving a deathbed confession to her daughter who is either sleeping with more than one man or lying?
There's nothing purported about them. Again, as rc pointed out throughout this thread, with the comma replaced and the final sentence of her deathbed "confession" reattached, the claimed logical dilemma capsizes and sinks.