An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_DarkHelmet]

It's difficult to imagine marrying your neighbors wife without first coveting.

Unless of course one is placed between a rock and a hard place about polygamy and then decide to ask women who one knows and who one desires to have kinship with her family. Has I have said, a horny toad just doesn't become suddenly a horny toad. I see no horny toadism when Joseph traveled away from the saints to points east. And I see no horny toadism from the women who did become his plural wife. I read of no bedroom lust with the prophet drooling from his mouth as orgasm happens. I would imagine that the women who stayed behind when the saints moved west, would be more than willing to spill the beans if carnal desire were the case. Unless of course, women of yesteryear had pride in themselves and did not seek fame for 15 minutes as they do now.

If you compare the Mormon women back then to the celebrity skanks today, then of course they come across as having more class and dignity. But I don't think those women back then are much different from today's LDS women. You may find this surprising, but most women, including LDS women, enjoy sex; even carnal, lustful, drooling-orgasm sex with their horny toad husbands. And most women, especially LDS women, want to be mothers. It seems apologists would prefer that Joseph Smith's plural wives lived sexless, childless lives with a man they rarely saw, and had to share with others, and that somehow makes polygamy OK. I'm not sure if that is any better than Brigham Young's polygamy where the wives were at least allowed to have some intimacy with their husbands, and bear his children. I'm curious if we did a poll, which version of polygamy the women here would prefer. I'm not a woman so I don't know the answer.

[_why me]

My apologies. They haven't installed the alarm bell and the fireman's pole in my house yet, so I'm still sometimes a bit slow to respond to demands for my participation here while I'm sleeping or otherwise engaged.

Here are the reviews that we published of Grant Palmer's book:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=513

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=512

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=533

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=510

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=511

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=514

Now. This is as far as I'll go toward producing a Cliff's Notes version for those here who will demand it: I think that the most spectacularly weak portion of Grant Palmer's book was also the one portion of it where he could claim some originality. That was his attempt to link the Moroni story with E. T. A. Hoffmann's Der goldne Topf. I can't think of any serious scholar, Mormon or non-Mormon, nor even any serious critic, who has found it even remotely convincing. And for good reason.

Could you provide something from a serious, scholarly, credible source?

Most scholars don't care much about Palmer's book because of a lack of interest. How many scholars are interested in books published by signature. Now Knopf or some other publisher may get some juice in the battery. In fights among former Mormons, liberal Mormons and other Mormons do not concern the scholarly community very much.

[_why me]

If you compare the Mormon women back then to the celebrity skanks today, then of course they come across as having more class and dignity. But I don't think those women back then are much different from today's LDS women. You may find this surprising, but most women, including LDS women, enjoy sex; even carnal, lustful, drooling-orgasm sex with their horny toad husbands. And most women, especially LDS women, want to be mothers. It seems apologists would prefer that Joseph Smith's plural wives lived sexless, childless lives with a man they rarely saw, and had to share with others, and that somehow makes polygamy OK. I'm not sure if that is any better than Brigham Young's polygamy where the wives were at least allowed to have some intimacy with their husbands, and bear his children. I'm curious if we did a poll, which version of polygamy the women here would prefer. I'm not a woman so I don't know the answer.

Here was my point: since Joseph Smith was considered a prophet of god and since some of the plural wives stayed behind and became inactive members or even perhaps former members, they may have spilled the beans somewhat in terms of the sex life with Joseph Smith. Most women know when a guy just wants their body and is using their body for their own personal pleasure. Lust, mouth drooling, talking dirty, horny toad sex etc would raise the radar for the women. But in Joseph Smith's case, no such reports from women exist. Now it would be wonderful if one of these former plural wives would have commented on Joseph Smith being a 19th century porn stud but...nope. In fact, not one of these women said a bad word about him.

Now of course, we do have the brotherton thread. But...the women who were directly involved with him as a plural wife should no signs of brothertonism.

[_just me]

If you compare the Mormon women back then to the celebrity skanks today, then of course they come across as having more class and dignity. But I don't think those women back then are much different from today's LDS women. You may find this surprising, but most women, including LDS women, enjoy sex; even carnal, lustful, drooling-orgasm sex with their horny toad husbands. And most women, especially LDS women, want to be mothers. It seems apologists would prefer that Joseph Smith's plural wives lived sexless, childless lives with a man they rarely saw, and had to share with others, and that somehow makes polygamy OK. I'm not sure if that is any better than Brigham Young's polygamy where the wives were at least allowed to have some intimacy with their husbands, and bear his children. I'm curious if we did a poll, which version of polygamy the women here would prefer. I'm not a woman so I don't know the answer.

Here was my point: since Joseph Smith was considered a prophet of god and since some of the plural wives stayed behind and became inactive members or even perhaps former members, they may have spilled the beans somewhat in terms of the sex life with Joseph Smith. Most women know when a guy just wants their body and is using their body for their own personal pleasure. Lust, mouth drooling, talking dirty, horny toad sex etc would raise the radar for the women. But in Joseph Smith's case, no such reports from women exist. Now it would be wonderful if one of these former plural wives would have commented on Joseph Smith being a 19th century porn stud but...nope. In fact, not one of these women said a bad word about him.

Now of course, we do have the brotherton thread. But...the women who were directly involved with him as a plural wife should no signs of brothertonism.

Yeah, it was so super common for women to publicly talk about their sex lives back then. Even victims of rape and molestation were always going around talking about it in public. So very common. Lots of porn talk amongst the women folk in public venues.
And since we only have a few of the women say they had "carnal relations" with the man, it must have been very quick missionary style carnal relations. We can tell because of the lack of detail. Detail these women certainly would have given the public had it happened.

Not one woman said a bad word about him...well, except the few that did and they should be ignored since their stories aren't identical to the women who never said a bad word.

But then, what counts as a bad word to one won't to another. I consider it a huge red flag that Joseph approached Mary Rollins Lightner when she was 12 YEARS OLD and told her that she would be his and god had given her to him for a wife. No, that shouldn't be seen as inappropriate by anyone. *eye roll*
The fact that he approached his foster daughters to become his wives, well that shouldn't send up any red flags for people.. That is totally above board and appropriate for a man in a position of power and trust to do to girls who totally rely on him for their survival. Nothing bad at all about that.

The fact that he did a lot of it behind Emma's back and most of it without her approval shouldn't bother anyone either. After all, Jesus is gonna destroy her for being so insolent. What kind of woman wouldn't want her husband sleeping with half the females in town? She should have been HONORED!

Because a few of them had a freaking burning in their bosom to confirm that the totally appropriate advances of the charismatic prophet of the Lord were TRUE. And we all know that that ONLY happens when God really does approve of the union. No other women have EVER had that feeling about, say, a creepy old cult leader or anything.

[_DarkHelmet]

Here was my point: since Joseph Smith was considered a prophet of god and since some of the plural wives stayed behind and became inactive members or even perhaps former members, they may have spilled the beans somewhat in terms of the sex life with Joseph Smith. Most women know when a guy just wants their body and is using their body for their own personal pleasure. Lust, mouth drooling, talking dirty, horny toad sex etc would raise the radar for the women. But in Joseph Smith's case, no such reports from women exist. Now it would be wonderful if one of these former plural wives would have commented on Joseph Smith being a 19th century porn stud but...nope. In fact, not one of these women said a bad word about him.

Now of course, we do have the brotherton thread. But...the women who were directly involved with him as a plural wife should no signs of brothertonism.

Yeah, it was so super common for women to publicly talk about their sex lives back then. Even victims of rape and molestation were always going around talking about it in public. So very common. Lots of porn talk amongst the women folk in public venues.
And since we only have a few of the women say they had "carnal relations" with the man, it must have been very quick missionary style carnal relations. We can tell because of the lack of detail. Detail these women certainly would have given the public had it happened.

Not one woman said a bad word about him...well, except the few that did and they should be ignored since their stories aren't identical to the women who never said a bad word.

But then, what counts as a bad word to one won't to another. I consider it a huge red flag that Joseph approached Mary Rollins Lightner when she was 12 YEARS OLD and told her that she would be his and god had given her to him for a wife. No, that shouldn't be seen as inappropriate by anyone. *eye roll*
The fact that he approached his foster daughters to become his wives, well that shouldn't send up any red flags for people.. That is totally above board and appropriate for a man in a position of power and trust to do to girls who totally rely on him for their survival. Nothing bad at all about that.

The fact that he did a lot of it behind Emma's back and most of it without her approval shouldn't bother anyone either. After all, Jesus is gonna destroy her for being so insolent. What kind of woman wouldn't want her husband sleeping with half the females in town? She should have been HONORED!

Because a few of them had a freaking burning in their bosom to confirm that the totally appropriate advances of the charismatic prophet of the Lord were TRUE. And we all know that that ONLY happens when God really does approve of the union. No other women have EVER had that feeling about, say, a creepy old cult leader or anything.

This is true, but criticizing Mormon polygamy is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's like trying to convince people that AIDS is a bad disease to have. The only people who don''t agree that Joseph Smith's polygamy was bad are a tiny fringe element of society. I feel bad for the apologists to have to defend this. It is an impossible task to defend the indefensible. Even DCP admits that he wouldn't be defending this behavior if he didn't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.

[_harmony]

I doubt he married Fanny

Have you read Don Bradley's excellent article on that topic? He comes to a different conclusion than you do.

Which doesn't make Don's conclusion correct.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Which doesn't make Don's conclusion correct.

What will make Don's conclusion correct, or not, is the quality of his evidence and his analysis -- and the only people even potentially qualified to form a conclusion on the topic are those who have actually examined it.

And no, there is, so far as I'm aware, no link to Don's article. Even in this advanced age of miracles and marvels, there are still some very good things that can only be found in . . . well, books.

[_harmony]

Which doesn't make Don's conclusion correct.

What will make Don's conclusion correct, or not, is the quality of his evidence and his analysis -- and the only people even potentially qualified to form a conclusion on the topic are those who have actually examined it.

And the most learned scientists in the world once believed the earth was flat.

Turned out to be wrong.

[_Daniel Peterson]

And the most learned scientists in the world once believed the earth was flat.

Turned out to be wrong.

And that is relevant . . . how, exactly?

Do you somehow imagine that it demonstrates that Don Bradley is wrong? Or that it grants you the ability to pronounce judgment upon his article without reading it?

If not, exactly what is your point?

Of course, perhaps it's naïve on my part to assume that you even think you need to have one.

[_harmony]

And that is relevant . . . how, exactly?

Do you somehow imagine that it demonstrates that Don Bradley is wrong? Or that it grants you the ability to pronounce judgment upon his article without reading it?

If not, exactly what is your point?

Where did I say Don was wrong? And what makes you think I haven't read it?

You said:

and the only people even potentially qualified to form a conclusion on the topic are those who have actually examined it.

The world's best scientists once thought the earth was flat. They examined it repeatedly. Perhaps you would pronounce them as not "qualified", since it turns out they were wrong. The uneducated, scientifically unqualified sailors were the ones who turned out to be right. And that's a fairly easily observable physical phenomena.

Don Bradley isn't examining a physical phenomena; he's examining a sociological and cultural phenomena, both of which are less easy to quantify than the physical. So pardon me if I don't hold my breath that those who you deem as "qualified" reach a conclusion that will never be locked in stone. Those that are "qualified" have been proven wrong over and over again.