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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

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

Post by _beastie »

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?


Hmmm, good question. The relationship would be closer to concubinage than marriage, and yet it doesn’t even rise to that level, since concubines were socially recognized, but just with fewer rights than a wife. Perhaps spiritual wifery, as the term was understood by other religious sects of the period, comes closest.

Spiritual wifery is a term first used in America by the Immortalists in and near the Blackstone Valley of Rhode Island and Massachusetts in the 1740s. The term describes the idea that certain people are divinely destined to meet and share their love (at differing points along the carnal-spiritual spectrum, depending on the particular religious movement involved) after a receiving a spiritual confirmation, and regardless of previous civil marital bonds


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery
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.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

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

Post by _beastie »

Look, it's not my fault that the march of time, coupled with your many years of wanton fornication, has taken you from here:


Aren't you the one who once bragged about your spirit of discernment? I gotta tell you, it's utterly failing you. Talking smack only works if there's a small element of truth in the smack. There's none in yours.

I understand that talking smack is all you can do at this point, though. You certainly can't refute these points:

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
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.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

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

Post by _DonBradley »

...
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

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

Post by _EAllusion »

I think Will is trying to be lighthearted and funny. It's how he tries to pull that off that's telling.
_Ray A

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

Post by _Ray A »

DonBradley wrote: Though this may be hard for some to believe, I think the comments are usually intended to be funny, even to the person at whom they are aimed.


I'd find a belief in Book of Mormon historicity easier.


.
Last edited by _Ray A on Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

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

Post by _DonBradley »

JohnStuartMill wrote:I've rarely see Will do anything BUT attack people personally. I understand that apologists may find religious criticism frustrating, and I certainly don't deny that some critics give worse than they get, but Will really goes after people unnecessarily. I don't think the incongruity between Jesus' Gospel and Will's method of defending his interpretation of it can be patched up. Keep in mind that I'm saying this as a non-Christian non-theist, so it's not as if I'm holding Will to my standard -- I'm just holding him to his own.


I understand, JSM. I've often, for instance, found it difficult to understand why Louis Midgley would defend a book that says not to contend at all in the most contentious and acrimonious spirit I've ever seen in supposedly scholarly discourse.

I'm not defending either Will or a more personal, punchy style of posting. But my own perspective on Will has recently been widened, and I wanted to pass that along. Things that come from Will that may have previously looked to me like mean-spirited attacks now look to me like he's writing in a spirit of humor. Whether it's always good humor or in good taste is another question. :mrgreen:

My Best,

Don
Last edited by Guest on Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

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

Post by _DonBradley »

Ray A wrote:
DonBradley wrote: Though this may be hard for some to believe, I think the comments are usually intended to be funny, even to the person at whom they are aimed.


I'd find a belief in Book of Mormon historicity easier.


ROTFL! :lol:

I'm glad to hear you're regaining your faith, Ray. :wink:

Don
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

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

Post by _why me »

DonBradley wrote:
I'm glad to hear you're regaining your faith, Ray. :wink:

Don


Did you see that I reposted the link in a separate post?
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_DonBradley
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 6:58 am

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

Post by _DonBradley »

why me wrote:Did you see that I reposted the link in a separate post?


Yes, and thank you!

The computer I'm presently on is blocking the linked document because of key word-filtering. I don't know what kind of dirty, nasty, filthy stuff you're linking me too, but I'll find out when I'm able. :wink:

Don
_karl61
_Emeritus
Posts: 2983
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:29 pm

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

Post by _karl61 »

DonBradley wrote:
why me wrote:Did you see that I reposted the link in a separate post?


Yes, and thank you!

The computer I'm presently on is blocking the linked document because of key word-filtering. I don't know what kind of dirty, nasty, filthy stuff you're linking me too, but I'll find out when I'm able. :wink:

Don


Don, are you in Iran?
I want to fly!
Post Reply