With defenders like you and Will, Mormonism needs no enemies. It will just delf-destruct.
And yet ……………………… it doesn’t.
Nor, I predict, will it yet on account of anything I might say.
In fact, it might even prosper in some quarters as a direct result of the things I say. And that’s all I really care about anyway.
.
.
.
Lance Corporal CamNC4Me:
Those Mormon females were victims of a system that stripped them of power and recourse, just as Muslim women under Sharia law have no authority, no recourse, and are criminalized if they don't comply with their status as property to their husbands, fathers, brother, and neighbors.
BS!
Your statement has absolutely no relationship to things as they really were during the period of Mormon plural marriage.
Furthermore, I’m not entirely convinced that Islam, as practiced by those I consider to be its true believers, regards and treats women as severely as your statement implies. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an apologist for Islam, but I have observed that many of its adherents, both historically and presently, do not view things in the way you suggest.
I urge the men who are arguing on behalf of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith to reconsider their positions and give pause to the ideology that spawns this kind of behavior.
I don’t believe you have anything even approaching a correct conception of the ideology underlying the practice of plural marriage as taught by Joseph Smith.
.
.
.
beastlie:
Of course she wasn’t accused of bigamy. She never was formally married to Joseph Smith.
By “formally married,” you of course mean “legally married.” Do you believe that she (and Joseph) might very well have considered their union as legitimate as you do yours with your current companion?
And, assuming for a moment if you will that there is a God, do you believe that He might also have sanctioned that union? If not, then why? In other words, aside from your personal aversion to this particular form of human bonding, can you logically dispute that God himself may see things differently?
… it is true that women who rejected secretive polygamous advances were libeled and slandered, with the clear intent of ruining their social standing.
Without entering into a dispute over whether or not some (a very, very few “some”) women were served in that fashion—perhaps without cause—do you really mean to convey the notion that, as a standard practice, throughout the continuum of the era of Mormon plural marriages, that “it is true that women who rejected secretive polygamous advances were libeled and slandered, with the clear intent of ruining their social standing”? Because, if that’s what you mean to imply, you would be—and demonstrably so—wrong.
Of course the women who were persuaded to consider the proposal seriously, due to their deep belief that Joseph Smith was a “true prophet”, received a spiritual “witness”. Think of the psychological stress of the situation. The young female in question already believes Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the LDS church is the “one true church”. Often the female’s family is either gone or likewise fervent believers in the church and Joseph Smith. What would have happened to her had she prayed and received a “no” answer? Please be clear – I am not saying these women fabricated or lied about their testimonies of spiritual wifery. I am saying that their minds accommodatingly provided that which they needed in order to continue with their lives.
I think this entire paragraph is a prime example of your frequent tendency to both extrapolate beyond the evidence, or to be substantially unfamiliar with that evidence, or to misread that evidence so severely as to do violence to the primary sources. Not only that, but your interpretation of the sources (and it appears that Zina Diantha Huntington’s words are the primary target of your statement) manifests an extraordinary arrogance towards her extremely enlightening account, and I believe you are, without any warrant, extraordinarly dismissive of someone I consider to be quite a fine example, albeit a very complex one, of personally powerful womanhood.
by the way, the young teenage girls that Wayne Bent laid naked with still believe the act was inspired of God.
Once again you clearly manifest the fact that, for you, it IS nothing but a question of sexuality.
I am personally convinced that the advent of Mormon plural marriage was NOT primarily a question of sexuality. It went far beyond that, encompassing concepts that were simultaneously spiritual and yet supremely material in nature.
I don’t expect you to understand. But I think I do, and therefore I am not nearly as inclined to be puritanically judgmental of these things as I perceive you are.
.
.
.
Jersey Goil:
What if it were lust based on Joseph Smith's part and terror based on Fanny's part?
Sometimes you can be so obtusely ridiculous. This is one of them.
And you based your assessment on her appearance. The woman is 75 flippin' years old. How superficial does it get for you, Will?
Sometimes you can be so obtusely ridiculous. This is another of them.
It has nothing to do with her appearance, you silly woman! It has to do with her espoused philosophies and how they have impacted three generations of human womanhood. Truth be told, she looks pretty damn good for her age, from a purely physical standpoint. But you only see what you want to see. Some people see what’s really there.
She wasn't "a young playboy bunny". She was working on a story.
Baby, they’re ALL “working on a story.” Being a "playboy bunny"--for anyone and for any length of time, is always a means to an end.
The question remains: what is that end, and how will it be judged by history?.
.
.
Kissassman:
I saw a beautiful woman in both pictures.
As he smacks a big one on TD’s wrinkled bottom.
You’re as predictable as they come.
.
.
.
beastlie (again):
As I've already stated numerous times, judging by his commentary on this board, Will seems to believe that youth and sexual attractiveness (and apparently it's impossible to separate the two) are the most important thing about women.
Yeah, that’s it. You snarly, sagging, middle-aged wench, you.
Hence, whenever he wants to truly insult a woman on this board, he brings up their age and/or loss of sexual attractiveness. It's quite predictable. It's also nonsensical, given the fact that he knows nothing about the relative attractiveness of the various women on this board.
But I know about you. You’re a very beautiful woman. On the outside.
Just like Gloria Steinem.
