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
_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 »

karl61 wrote:
DonBradley wrote: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?


No, I'm on LDS Church property.

Don
_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 »

No, I'm on LDS Church property.


:lol:
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
_Ray A

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

Post by _Ray A »

DonBradley wrote:
No, I'm on LDS Church property.


In other words, you're in Iran.
_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:
No, I'm on LDS Church property.


In other words, you're in Iran.


I dunno. But I'm pretty sure I didn't vote for the guy in charge.

:wink:

Don
_Ray A

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

Post by _Ray A »

DonBradley wrote: 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've crossed swords with Lou a few times, and although very contentious, and blunt, he's never been vulgar.
_Brackite
_Emeritus
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:12 am

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

Post by _Brackite »

Nevo wrote:Actually it's not that simple, as the following from Kathryn Daynes shows:

In 1850 the sex ratio for those fifteen to twenty-nine [the prime marrying age range] was quite high. There were 124 males for every 100 females, not an unusual ratio for a frontier area in its earliest stages of settlement. Rapid immigration into Utah during the 1850s both greatly expanded and changed the population. By 1860 the sex ratio for those in the prime marrying ages dropped to 93 [males for every 100 females]; within a decade the shortage of women had turned into a surplus. By 1870 the numbers of men and women of prime marrying age were almost equal, by 1880 men again outnumbered women slightly (sex ratio of 105), and by 1890 the sex ratio had climbed to 116 for those fifteen to twenty-nine.

These sex ratios indicate that men of this age group significantly outnumbered women of similar age only in 1850 and 1890; in the intervening decades there was a shortage of young men or they were only slightly more numerous than young women. Thus the marriage market was not as disadvantageous for young men as the sex ratio for the entire Utah population would suggest.

It is unclear, though, how many non-Mormon men, such as soldiers, merchants, and miners, were included in each census. Dean May has calculated that non-Mormons accounted for 12 percent of Utah's population in 1860 and 21 percent in 1880. Because non-Mormon men undoubtedly outnumbered non-Mormon women in nineteenth-century Utah, the preponderance of men, as shown in the census, is unlikely to reflect the sex ratio within the Mormon population.

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

From the 1850s to the 1880s, then, the number of women receiving their temple blessings exceeded the number of men who did. Thus, in the marriage market containing only those desiring temple ordinances, men were at a decided advantage--or they would have been so in a monogamous system. Under such a system, women who wished to be sealed to a mate would have experienced a marriage squeeze; that is, they would have encountered a scarcity of endowed males.

In short, a Mormon woman who wished to be married in the temple would have had reduced chances of such a marriage under a monogamous system. The marriage squeeze against endowed women eased slightly in the 1870s, but there still would have been a conspicuous shortage of men.


— Kathryn M. Daynes, "Single Men in a Polygamous Society: Male Marriage Patterns in Manti, Utah," Journal of Mormon History 24, no. 1 (1998): 91-92.




Hello Nevo,

Thanks Nevo, For giving me a descent Response, instead of Personally insulted me like the LDS Apologist William Schryver did. There are almost usually more Males that die before they reach adulthood, than there are Females who die before they reach adulthood. There were likely more adult Mormon Females within the Utah Territory, then there were adult Mormon Males within the Utah Territory, during most of the time, between the Years of 1850 and 1885.
However, The Fact remains that there are about 105 Males born for every 100 Females.

Now, Here is again The Following important information, From About.com:

How many boys are born for every 100 girls?

There are 105 boy babies born for ever[y] 100 girl babies worldwide but scientists haven't determined why this sex ratio is so.



( Link: http://geography.about.com/library/faq/ ... eratio.htm )


And, Here is The Following important information, From Wikipedia:

Sex ratio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sex ratio is the ratio of males to females in a population. The primary sex ratio is the ratio at the time of conception, secondary sex ratio is the ratio at time of birth, and tertiary sex ratio is the ratio of mature organisms.[1]

The human sex ratio is of particular interest to anthropologists and demographers. In humans the secondary sex ratio is commonly assumed to be 105 boys to 100 girls (which sometimes is shortened to "a ratio of 105"). In human societies, however, sex ratios at birth or among infants may be considerably skewed by sex-selective abortion and infanticide. The CIA estimates that the current world wide sex ratio at birth is 107 boys to 100 girls.[2]

In biology, sex ratio is defined as the proportion of males in the population.


( Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_ratio )


It sure looks like that the LDS Apologist of Polygyny, William Schryver is Not going to get his wish of having several wives within the Celestial Kingdom. :lol:
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
_Ray A

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

Post by _Ray A »

Brackite wrote:It sure looks like that the LDS Apologist of Polygyny, William Schryver is Not going to get his wish of having several wives within the Celestial Kingdom. :lol:


Let Will live in his fantasy, Brackite. That's one reason I haven't bothered to say much in this stoopid thread. A discussion about whether God would sanction polygamy is akin to discussing whether God would approve of the genocide in 1 Samuel 15. It has to be the most imbecilic concept in Mormonism, based in pure male sexual fantasy.
_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 »

I think instinct explains polygamy the best but like C.S. Lewis wrote:

Chastity is the most unpopular of Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it; the Christian rule is, “Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong. One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.

But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body. Now if we eat whenever we feel inclined and just as much as we want, it is quite true most of us will eat too much: but not terrifically too much. One man may eat enough for two, but he does not eat enough for ten. The appetite goes a little beyond its biological purpose, but not enormously. But if a healthy young man indulged his sexual appetite whenever he felt inclined, and if each act produced a baby, then in ten years he might easily populate a small village. This appetite is in ludicrous and preposterous excess of its function.
I want to fly!
_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:
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

I hope that you can link to it when you are on a different computer. I have noticed that that the other comrades on this thread have ignored commenting on it. That means that the critics have a problem dealing with the information in the link. It demonstrates that fanny may not have been the 'Laura Ingalls' of their fantasy. :biggrin:
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
_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 »

Ray A wrote:
Let Will live in his fantasy, Brackite. That's one reason I haven't bothered to say much in this stoopid thread. A discussion about whether God would sanction polygamy is akin to discussing whether God would approve of the genocide in 1 Samuel 15. It has to be the most imbecilic concept in Mormonism, based in pure male sexual fantasy.


God has sanctioned rather strange things. For example, the great flood, the swallowing of the egytian army into the sea, turning lot's wife into something gross etc. Also, telling a father to sacrifice his son as a test of faith etc. Polygamy would be benign when compared to some of the other things god has did or allowed.
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
Post Reply