why me wrote:She said yes, Ray. She could have said no. And that made all the difference. Now if it was forced, well, that is quite another thing. But it doesn't look forced to me.
So if a man approached your daughter, and told her that "God" commanded him to take her as his plural wife, you would not consider this forced? Do you think he just approached Fanny and said, "hey, let's have a fling"? Or did he tell Fanny that it was, verily, "the will of God"?
How did he persuade Fanny to bed? By his charisma? Or did he tell her it was "the will of God"? And if the latter, how would she have felt refusing the "offer"?
Last edited by _Ray A on Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:45 am, edited 2 times in total.
Now my own point of view is that Joseph Smith and fanny did nothing wrong. It was a sealing and the parents and relatives knew all about it.
I could agree with you there Why me, but only if Emma as first wife, knew about it and initially gave her consent, even if she later changed her mind. Further to that, if she was informed about polygamy, what did she understand the nature of 'spiritual wifery' to be? If she felt it was a sealing only, with no sexual activity, then I can understand her surprise at catching Joseph and Fanny in the barn in the very act and consequently withdrawing her approval.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
And just for the record, why me, if any man, claiming to be acting in the name of God or not, tried to take advantage of my 16 or 18 year daughter, I'd quickly disfigure his face for life. Yes, I'm like the "apostate" William Law, who at least had some principled bones in his body. You have no idea how obnoxious your thoughts are to me, and I suspect they might also be to your daughters.
She said yes, Ray. She could have said no. And that made all the difference. Now if it was forced, well, that is quite another thing. But it doesn't look forced to me. She was working as the maid, she knew he was married and she knew emma. She does have some responsibility in all this, if she wasn't forced. And again, I am taking the critic position that adultery occured.
So the 18 year old housemaid is apparently equally to blame for not standing up to the 27 year old "prophet" who's coming on to her?! Are you aware of what happened to the women who did reject Smith? Ask Sarah Pratt and Nancy Ridgon.
Not only that, but you don't have a clue how this all "went down" and you're speculating that Fanny seduced a 27 year old married man? So--even given your twisted and unsupported "logic"--where is God's command in all this? What value is it to you to "defend" Joseph Smith to such a degrading level? Fanny Alger never claimed to be a prophet of God.
And then I suppose even though Fanny exits the drama, gets married and settles down while Joseph continues on from one woman to another, I imagine you still would see Joseph as the victim of temptress after temptress when he marries the newly-wed Zina Huntington Jacobs despite her earlier rejection of his proposal? Are you going to blame Helen Mar Kimball as "wanting some action" when she flat out tells us how "repulsed" she was at the idea of marrying Smith?
Now my own point of view is that Joseph Smith and fanny did nothing wrong. It was a sealing and the parents and relatives knew all about it.
You better stick with the apologist's arguments, why me. When you reach this level, it's time to rethink things.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.
Will’s just reacting with name-calling out of frustration, due to the fact that his hypocrisy has been exposed. He lives in a fantasy wherein his wife, or wives in the next life, are perfectly content sharing him in all his studly glory. He’s the centerpiece of his own personalized phallic worship. What more could any woman want than Will? At the same time, he has a notion of himself as someone who likes and respects strong women, so the fact that I’ve exposed that his inability to “tolerate” polyandry really has nothing to do with a perceived social ill creates internal anxiety due to the desire not to recognize his own hypocrisy – which is the desire to enjoy multiple partners without allowing his partner the same privilege. In fact, in watching Will’s behavior on this board, I would say one of his most obvious traits is that he wants more female attention than his one wife, and that he thinks about females primarily in sexual terms. Being faithful to his wife is likely a burden he’s had to bear in this life, for which he imagines a “reward” in the next. It’s unfathomable to him that perhaps his wife shares the same burden and hope. I’m sure she knows him well enough to protect his ego from the reality of the fact that it’s just as natural for women to have sexual interest in other males. He’s justified that hypocrisy in two ways – one is to convince himself that his opposition to polyandry is based on concern for society; and the second is to convince himself that women, by nature, do not desire more than one partner. I’ve pulled away the curtain and he’s reacting in a manner predictable of someone of his particular inclinations. He enjoys name calling, and usually fashions his name-calling towards women in a manner that attacks their sexual desirability – which reveals what Will thinks is the most important thing about a woman.
The truth is uncomfortable for Will. The truth is that:
1. polygyny carries just as much social risk as polyandry 2. women are no more monogamous by nature than men 3. there will likely be more males than females in the CK due to the high male infant mortality rate throughout the history of this world 4. the history of the application of polygamy in the LDS church reveals that polygyny mainly “benefited” certain select men within the LDS power structure at the expense of others 5. Will does not have the position or stature in the LDS power structure to justify the belief that he would be one of those who benefited
Will has to protect his personalized phallic celestial fantasy and so will divert into predictable name-calling.
KA is absolutely correct. Females have far more capacity for sexual enjoyment than males, and have far more capacity to perform satisfactorily with multiple partners. Females, throughout history, have followed the same sexual pattern of behavior as males, which is that both male and female prefers to have one recognized mating partner, but often engage in sexual trysts on the side. Even in altered marriage systems, like polygyny, this pattern can be detected in that the male will usually demonstrate a strong preference for one of his wives, with the other wives assuming a less central position in terms of emotional and physical intimacy. And, of course, this is what females don’t like about the system, unless the female in question is uncomfortable with intimacy, in which case polygyny might suit her better than monogamy.
Face it, Will. If Mormonism is true, your eternal destiny is far more likely as a eunuch yourself than as a celestial Lothario. If you’re lucky, very lucky, you may be able to keep the one wife you have, but your chance of getting more wives is next to zero. Unless, of course, your real name is Gordon B. Hinkley or another male of his stature in the church. But a measly Sunday School teacher? Lol. LDS sexual theology is based on an extreme form of Darwinism, in that the “fittest” male gets it all, at the expense of other males and at the expense of females, who by their nature are not going to be satisfied sharing one male. You lose, cuz you ain’t the fittest.
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.
It is true that some females are very happy to have affairs with other women’s husbands. This is even more true when the husband in question is in a position of power in the given community, which Joseph Smith eventually was. So I do not doubt that some of his “wives” were very happy to have a secret relationship with him. Eliza Snow and Lucinda Morgan are two obvious examples.
However, that does not negate the reality that many of the females Joseph Smith went after were not naturally inclined to have a secretive relationship with him, even if it was called a “marriage”. Yet Joseph still sought those women, and convinced them by telling them things like they’d ensure their family’s salvation by entering into the relationship with him, or that an angel threatened his life, and giving them a very short amount of time to reply. Often these women were quite young and inexperienced. This was a clear abuse of power.
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.
why me wrote:Yes, I do. Look at it this way, Ray. According to the critics, Joseph Smith had sex with fanny and it was adultery. But fanny would need to consent. It was not rape. Now why did fanny consent? She knew that joe was married. She knew emma. She could have said no but she didn't.
If Fanny was of legal age, she was culpable as any other woman in the same situation. Fanny, however, was not the prophet and Fanny was not married. Joseph was a man, not a teenager; Joseph was married; and Joseph was the prophet. Fanny was guilty of fornication; Joseph was guilty of adultery and he lost the mantle of his calling because of his sin, which he never repented of.
Don't try to discount Joseph's sin, just because Fanny sinned too. Joseph's was the greater sin, because 1) he was married and had made legal vows to Emma, 2) he was an adult, and 3) he was the prophet who committed an unpardonable sin. Fanny had made no legal vows to anyone, was a teenager, and committed a lesser sin. By no stretch of the imagination can anyone hold Fanny accountable for Joseph's sin. She could parade naked in the parlor and when Joseph took her to the barn, the unpardonable sin is still Joseph's.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Don, I havn't had access to the sources that you have had (and am also looking forward to reading the articles you have mentioned), but I would love to know just what this 'marriage' consisted of, if it was indeed an early marriage.
Other than a few secret meetings where it seems likely that 'something' of a consensual sexual nature occurred, did Joseph promise to love her in sickness and health, support her and any resultant offspring materially? What was the long term benefit to either of them, particularly her? The promise of a place at the right hand of God?
If Joseph promised her great spiritual blessings in heaven for this 'marriage' then I can go some way to understanding it, but in terms of earthly blessings of a temporal nature, other than the excitement of a clandestine affair, I can't see much benefit for either of them, and certainly not for Emma. It still seems very, very messy.
If Joseph was going to institute polygamy I'm not sure he went about it the right way if he really was a prophet of God. Do you have any evidence that Emma knew from the beginning? If she had read Jacob 2 she might have picked up on early inklings. The situation is more understandable if she at first approved and then changed her mind, at least it had more of a chance for long term success.
To what extent do you feel that Emma's reactions were the reasons for the clanestine way in which Joseph tended to 'attempt' to practice polygamy. From where I am standing I would say that Brigham despite some disaffected wives was a fairly good example of a polygamist.
Joseph is a whole different kettle of fish, yet if Brigham attempted to put into practice what Joseph had taught, then maybe had Joseph been given the right area to live, and the right 'first' wife, his life might have followed a similar path. Brigham seems to have reaped the benefits of watching the mistakes that his mentor made.
This is an important point to remember in this conversation. A “marriage” with Joseph Smith was not a “marriage” in any sense of the word as we understand it today. It certainly did not include socially recognizing any possible offspring. It was mainly a promise of sexual availability to Joseph with the promise of being a recognized wife in the next life.
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.
beastie wrote:Will’s just reacting with name-calling out of frustration, due to the fact that his hypocrisy has been exposed. He lives in a fantasy wherein his wife, or wives in the next life, are perfectly content sharing him in all his studly glory. He’s the centerpiece of his own personalized phallic worship. What more could any woman want than Will? At the same time, he has a notion of himself as someone who likes and respects strong women, so the fact that I’ve exposed that his inability to “tolerate” polyandry really has nothing to do with a perceived social ill creates internal anxiety due to the desire not to recognize his own hypocrisy – which is the desire to enjoy multiple partners without allowing his partner the same privilege. In fact, in watching Will’s behavior on this board, I would say one of his most obvious traits is that he wants more female attention than his one wife, and that he thinks about females primarily in sexual terms. Being faithful to his wife is likely a burden he’s had to bear in this life, for which he imagines a “reward” in the next. It’s unfathomable to him that perhaps his wife shares the same burden and hope. I’m sure she knows him well enough to protect his ego from the reality of the fact that it’s just as natural for women to have sexual interest in other males. He’s justified that hypocrisy in two ways – one is to convince himself that his opposition to polyandry is based on concern for society; and the second is to convince himself that women, by nature, do not desire more than one partner. I’ve pulled away the curtain and he’s reacting in a manner predictable of someone of his particular inclinations. He enjoys name calling, and usually fashions his name-calling towards women in a manner that attacks their sexual desirability – which reveals what Will thinks is the most important thing about a woman.
The truth is uncomfortable for Will. The truth is that:
1. polygyny carries just as much social risk as polyandry 2. women are no more monogamous by nature than men 3. there will likely be more males than females in the CK due to the high male infant mortality rate throughout the history of this world 4. the history of the application of polygamy in the LDS church reveals that polygyny mainly “benefited” certain select men within the LDS power structure at the expense of others 5. Will does not have the position or stature in the LDS power structure to justify the belief that he would be one of those who benefited
Will has to protect his personalized phallic celestial fantasy and so will divert into predictable name-calling.
KA is absolutely correct. Females have far more capacity for sexual enjoyment than males, and have far more capacity to perform satisfactorily with multiple partners. Females, throughout history, have followed the same sexual pattern of behavior as males, which is that both male and female prefers to have one recognized mating partner, but often engage in sexual trysts on the side. Even in altered marriage systems, like polygyny, this pattern can be detected in that the male will usually demonstrate a strong preference for one of his wives, with the other wives assuming a less central position in terms of emotional and physical intimacy. And, of course, this is what females don’t like about the system, unless the female in question is uncomfortable with intimacy, in which case polygyny might suit her better than monogamy.
Face it, Will. If Mormonism is true, your eternal destiny is far more likely as a eunuch yourself than as a celestial Lothario. If you’re lucky, very lucky, you may be able to keep the one wife you have, but your chance of getting more wives is next to zero. Unless, of course, your real name is Gordon B. Hinkley or another male of his stature in the church. But a measly Sunday School teacher? Lol. LDS sexual theology is based on an extreme form of Darwinism, in that the “fittest” male gets it all, at the expense of other males and at the expense of females, who by their nature are not going to be satisfied sharing one male. You lose, cuz you ain’t the fittest.
Damn, Trixie. You just stripped Will naked... and every other LDS man who thinks he's gonna have a celestial harem at his disposal.
Not pretty. Effective, but not pretty. Good job!
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Damn, Trixie. You just stripped Will naked... and every other LDS man who thinks he's gonna have a celestial harem at his disposal.
Not pretty. Effective, but not pretty. Good job!
Yeah, it definitely ain't pretty. Really, it's sad. Fantasizing about an after-life in which all one's desires will not only be granted but divinely sanctioned may be a way of compensating for an unsatisfying "real" life.
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.
So--even given your twisted and unsupported "logic"--where is God's command in all this? What value is it to you to "defend" Joseph Smith to such a degrading level? Fanny Alger never claimed to be a prophet of God.