Peterson Pace - "Those who can, do ....."

[_Daniel Peterson]

Harmony is only happy when the poor and downtrodden succeed.

Candidly, she often seems to me to be happy only when she's preening herself on her moral superiority to somebody (e.g., to me, to the Brethren, to the general membership of the Church, etc.).

Did Harmony just agree with Daniel over the stuff she was screaming at him about a few pages back?

Yes, she did. Amazing, isn't it? I think she's finally realized that her position is factually and logically untenable.

And now, just as she pretended earlier today that I was the one questioning her concern for the poor and the downtrodden and harshly judging her as indifferent to them, she's now pretending that she's always been distinguishing between mainstream Islam and the Islam of the Taliban -- despite the fact that this thread is entirely open for examination by anybody, so that anybody will easily be able to see that she's misrepresenting it, that she repeatedly refused to grant that distinction when I made it.

[Guest]

Fix your quote, Daniel. I didn't have any part of that discussion.

No comment on the substance of my post, of course.

No retraction, no correction, no apology for yet another transparently unjustified assault on my character.

Poor Harmony. She's expendable.

[_harmony]

Where I'm coming from is that my impression is that Islam and Mormonism are very similar and were it not for separation of state and religion, and if we lived in countries headed by Mormon men, that women would be illiterate, living in polygynous marriages. At least under Islam men are supposed to only take up to 4 wives, that's better than Mormon leaders promoted and still practice under the truer version of J. Smith's religion.

Yes, with those monsters like Brigham Young (who said given the choice between educating his sons or his daughters he would choose his daughters) running the show Utah would have become an illiterate female culture if it weren't for the U.S.

It does bring up a question about what the US would look like, if Joseph had won his presidential bid.

[_marg]

You don't understand what I'm asking, Harmony. What is it that differentiates Mormonism from Islam, such that one religion would promote equality of women & men and one wouldn't. Perhaps there is no difference, but rather when there is separation of church and state, and when a government has an interest in having an educated populace that that is the key reason for equality.

Is there anything about Mormonism which leads you to believe it wants equality of women and men. And if there was no separation of church and state and Mormons were in power do you think equality of men and women would be promoted?

[Guest]

Marg's silly attempt to equate nineteenth-century Mormonism with the Afghan Taliban founders on the facts of real history. But Marg probably doesn't know any of those facts.

Women received the right to vote in Utah in 1870, under Brigham Young, and then, after it was taken away from them by the federal government in 1888, were granted it again by the new Utah constitution in 1895. Women received the vote nationally in 1920, fully fifty years after Utah had first granted it and a full quarter of a century after it had been written into the Utah constitution.

Here's a story I'm fond of: The first female state senator in the United States was Martha Hughes Cannon, a physician, who defeated her polygamist husband for the Utah state senate in 1896.

[_marg]

Here's a story I'm fond of: The first female state senator in the United States was Martha Hughes Cannon, a physician, who defeated her polygamist husband for the state senate in 1896.

So what's your point? Why would you be so fond of that story? Do you think this illustrates that there's nothing terribly wrong with polygamy? Do you think this illustrates women in polygamy are treated as equals to men? Just what is your point?

[_marg]

Women received the right to vote in Utah in 1870, under Brigham Young, and then, after it was taken away from them by the federal government in 1888, were granted it again by the new Utah constitution in 1895.

There must have been a method to B.Y's madness.

According to this site it mentions B.Y. didn't see giving the vote as a threat and thought it would stem the tide against antipolygamous forces who (rightfully I might add) saw polygamy as oppressive to women.

Women's suffrage in Utah

It had been promoted by a group of men who had left the Mormon church, the Godbeites, in their Utah Magazine, but to no immediate effect. At the same time, an unsuccessful effort to gain the vote for women in Utah territory had been launched in the East by antipolygamy forces; they were convinced that Utah women would vote to end plural marriage if given the chance. Brigham Young and others realized that giving Utah women the vote would not mean the end of polygamy, but it could change the predominant national image of Utah women as downtrodden and oppressed and could help to stem a tide of antipolygamy legislation by Congress.

[_Daniel Peterson]

So what's your point? Why would you be so fond of that story? Do you think this illustrates that there's nothing terribly wrong with polygamy? Do you think this illustrates women in polygamy are treated as equals to men? Just what is your point?

LOL. You probably really don't get it.

You sought to compare nineteenth-century Utah with Afghanistan under the Taliban. Martha Hughes Cannon illustrates, in one nice neat case, the utter fatuousness of your equation.

Martha Hughes Cannon, Mormon plural wife. University of Michigan-trained physician. Just like one of the women under the Taliban, right? Lots of female Afghan physicians went to medical school under the Taliban, right?

Martha Hughes Cannon, Mormon plural wife. Defeated her husband for the state senate. Just like one of the women under the Taliban, right? Lots of Afghan women successfully challenged their husbands' political leadership under the Taliban, right?

Martha Hughes Cannon, Mormon plural wife. First female state senator in the United States. Just like one of the women under the Taliban, right? Lots of Afghan women held high political offices under the Taliban, right?

Nineteenth-century Utah. Just like Afghanistan under the Taliban. You heard it here first. From marg.



.

[_harmony]

Harmony is only happy when the poor and downtrodden succeed.

Candidly, she often seems to me to be happy only when she's preening herself on her moral superiority to somebody (e.g., to me, to the Brethren, to the general membership of the Church, etc.).

You want a pound of flesh, Daniel? Of course you do. You are who are you, after all.

I am not morally superior to anyone, certainly not you or any of your friends. I simply am harmony... passionate and... what were your words?... oh yes... "unjust", "unfair", "shameful", "appallingly ignorant", "complacently judgmental".

Pardon me. Some days are just like that in my world.

Did Harmony just agree with Daniel over the stuff she was screaming at him about a few pages back?

Yes, she did. Amazing, isn't it? I think she's finally realized that her position is factually and logically untenable.

No, you were finally clear. Afghanistan means Islam to me. Brand name isn't even on my radar. And Daniel... no matter how you slice it, Taliban is Islam... maybe not your favorite brand, but it is still Islam.

And now, just as she pretended earlier today that I was the one questioning her concern for the poor and the downtrodden and harshly judging her as indifferent to them... [snip blah blah blah]

Deny it all you want, Daniel. Don't make me quote you again. It's already on this thread at least 3 times.

You're the one who escalated. My mistake was allowing my passion to follow you. For that, I apologize. (I am well aware that this is one more instance where you will not). You will not even admit to your attack, let alone apologize for it.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am not morally superior to anyone, certainly not you or any of your friends. I simply am harmony... passionate and... what were your words?... oh yes... "unjust", "unfair", "shameful", "appallingly ignorant", "complacently judgmental".

Pardon me. Some days are just like that in my world.

That's certainly how you've treated me on this thread.

No, you were finally clear.

I've distinguished the particular type of Islam in Afghanistan from other types of Islam from the very beginning of this wretched and extraordinarily unpleasant conversation. From the very start, I distinguished between the Taliban, on the one hand, and the Muslims of the government in Kabul, and between the Taliban and the Muslims in Iran, Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kuwait, and the like.

Afghanistan means Islam to me. Brand name isn't even on my radar.

That's not my fault.

And Daniel... no matter how you slice it, Taliban is Islam... maybe not your favorite brand, but it is still Islam.

Just as chipmunks are mammals. But you can't generalize mindlessly from chipmunks to cheetahs, elephants, and humpback whales.

You're the one who escalated.

You had been irrelevantly and unjustly and falsely accusing me of indifference to suffering, poverty, and oppression for quite a while before I called you on it.

My mistake was allowing my passion to follow you. For that, I apologize. (I am well aware that this is one more instance where you will not). You will not even admit to your attack, let alone apologize for it.

I cheerfully grant that I denounced your unfair, irrelevant, and unjust judgment of me, and I don't take back my denunciation. What you said about me was wholly uncalled for and shameful.