Joseph and Fanny-Asking for Will's Opinion in Particular

[_beastie]

by the way, Will, attacking me based on my age or perceived desirability - either physical or emotional - doesn't work. I'm very secure in those areas, so your attacks just make me roll my eyes and yawn.

[_Dr. Shades]

Will:

In your opinion, what does "misogyny" consist of?

[_William Schryver]

Will:

In your opinion, what does "misogyny" consist of?

Misogyny is a term used to describe the feelings inculcated in human females for the past half-century in the developed areas of the modern world. It consists of a combination malaise of self-loathing and an unrequited desire to wield and whimsically abuse the unlimited power perceived to be the sole province of men. It has maimed the better part of the past three generations of women, and its reign of terror continues unabated.

[_EAllusion]

Heh. Ouch.

I'd like to think that it is especially painful for Will to have a woman pwn him in that manner. And Will will console himself by thinking, "She'll stand before the judgment of God, and she'll regret every word she ever said to me this day. And I'll look down upon her in my celestial glory and tell her 'I told you so!'

[_DonBradley]

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.

This is a good point. Secret plural marriages were recognized by the parties involved, perhaps a few others, and, it was understood, God. They were relationships that in theory would become public at some point, but were not, as Beastie points out, at that time ways of bringing societally 'legitimate' offspring into the world.

That said, I'd be interested, Beastie, in how you would understand these relationships, particularly those in Nauvoo, where the underground practice became well established. If they don't fit legal or sociological/anthropological definitions of marriage, how would you characterize them?

Don

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Gentlepeople,

Well, I'm rarely at a loss for words, but in this moment all I can do is say, "Oh, my!" after having read Mr. Schryver's "definition" of misogyny. To literally take a term, the definition of which is "The hatred or contempt of women." and turn it into something akin to "penis envy" is one of the more disconcerting posts I've seen come from a Mopologist. I can only assign an intent to outright deceive the readership to Mr. Schryver by having said what he said a moment ago.

Which brings me to this thought: Why the need to redefine a word? What is the purpose behind confusing the meaning of a word when there are so many words that can clearly convey their own meanings?

To ask Mr. Schryver "what is his interpretation of misogyny" is to competely disregard the established fact that few of us have the mandate or the stewardship to define words for the rest of us. It's not up to the general population to figure out what an individual decides a word means, but rather it's the individual's burden to ensure his meaning is clear and falls within generally acknowledged terms in order to reduce confusion.

Mr. Schryver not only failed to use the right word for the feelings he expressed, but further demonstrated to us an inherent communications dishonesty by assigning a complete and false meaning to a word.

Misogyny isn't about women's envy of men's power, but rather men's contempt or hatred for women. It's a simple word with a clear meaning. Let's not conflate that generally accepted meaning with Mr. Schryver's emotional state, shall we?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_truth dancer]

Hi Walmart,

Are you a defender of fanny's honor?

I'm a defender of girls being seduced by a much older married man.

How do you know that fanny was not physically attracted to Joseph Smith and welcomed a sexual encounter?

Irrelevant. She was a girl being manipulated by a grown, married, man.

How do you know that she did not tempt Joseph?

Personally, I am quite sure Joseph was tempted by all sorts of girls and women. This has nothing to do with the behavior of the girls and women by whom he was tempted.

Critics always blame Joseph and see the women as victims.

No, we see GIRLS as victims. We see powerful men manipulating and coercing girls and women and find it inappropriate to say the least. (When you see Warren Jeffs on TV, do you blame the twelve year old girls whom Jeffs is kissing or the child for tempting him)?

There might have been some hot and horny women back then around Joseph.

You mean girls? And, so what if women are wanting sex? What does this have to do with anything? What decent married man takes advantage of his power, position, and authority to seduce girls into his bed, (or rather the haystack)?

A man who had power would certainly attract the ladies, as it does today

You mean girls? Again, so what? Most decent married men are not trying to figure out a way to take advantage of their middle school neighbor girls, or the high school babysitter.

Why do you think it is illegal for a grown man to have sex with a child? "Consensual" or not, makes no difference. It is because girls (and boys), are easily manipulated and coerced by older and more powerful men.

And, just an FYI, girls today reach sexual maturity much earlier than they did a hundred years ago.

~td~

[_DonBradley]

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.

Ditto!

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?

Dunno.

I agree with Beastie that what was going on during the period of secrecy necessarily doesn't fit the definition of marriage as a societally recognized relationship.

Having witnesses to a plural marriage was a way of partly filling that void of social recognition.

Were there witnesses to the earliest polygamous marriages? I don't know. But I really doubt it.

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.

Agreed.

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.

My guess would be that it was more the reverse--that Emma reacted so poorly in part because Joseph had gone ahead in the practice without first teaching it to her. This always made her suspect, in my opinion, that it was more akin to a series of affairs than a series of marriages.

The best evidence is that he didn't teach it to her and try to get her consent before moving ahead.

Brigham seems to have reaped the benefits of watching the mistakes that his mentor made.

Huh. I hadn't thought of that. No doubt Brigham and the others did consciously choose not to do certain things Joseph had done that didn't go so well...

Don

[_DarkHelmet]

Gentlepeople,

Well, I'm rarely at a loss for words, but in this moment all I can do is say, "Oh, my!" after having read Mr. Schryver's "definition" of misogyny. To literally take a term, the definition of which is "The hatred or contempt of women." and turn it into something akin to "penis envy" is one of the more disconcerting posts I've seen come from a Mopologist. I can only assign an intent to outright deceive the readership to Mr. Schryver by having said what he said a moment ago.

Which brings me to this thought: Why the need to redefine a word? What is the purpose behind confusing the meaning of a word when there are so many words that can clearly convey their own meanings?

To ask Mr. Schryver "what is his interpretation of misogyny" is to competely disregard the established fact that few of us have the mandate or the stewardship to define words for the rest of us. It's not up to the general population to figure out what an individual decides a word means, but rather it's the individual's burden to ensure his meaning is clear and falls within generally acknowledged terms in order to reduce confusion.

Mr. Schryver not only failed to use the right word for the feelings he expressed, but further demonstrated to us an inherent communications dishonesty by assigning a complete and false meaning to a word.

Misogyny isn't about women's envy of men's power, but rather men's contempt or hatred for women. It's a simple word with a clear meaning. Let's not conflate that generally accepted meaning with Mr. Schryver's emotional state, shall we?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

I'm sure the guy who gave the false definition of misogyny was just joking around. He knows it is defined as hatred of women, but I'm sure he thinks misogyny is a myth, a made up word for those angry feminazis to give them a persecution complex. That seems to be what he thinks of misogyny.

[_DonBradley]

Why do critics discount fanny's role in seduction.

WhyMe, you are taking a losing and despicable position and losing credibility by the second.

If you look at it as an affair, the blame goes on the 30-ish year old married prophet far, far more than the single 18-ish year old girl working for him. At best, Fanny would have been just past the age at which she could give her own consent to a marriage in Ohio at the time. She was at a far lower level of emotional, and therefore moral, responsibility. And he was in a position of fiduciary responsibility for her.

Please, quit while you're behind.

Don