Runtu wrote:2. I am troubled that Joseph used older women, such as Patty Sessions and Elizabeth Durfee, to approach younger women and girls to introduce them to the practice and assuage their fears. I hope I can be forgiven for finding this disturbingly similar to the procurers who scour bus stations to find new recruits to prostitution rings.
Joseph essentially turned these women into pimps.
Runtu wrote:6. Joseph sometimes used family members to persuade women and girls to marry him. With Sarah Ann Whitney and Helen Kimball, he told the father that the entire family's exaltation depended on the daughters' acceptance. Both girls recount being torn in the extreme, but they trusted their fathers. Other times, Joseph separated the women from loved ones, as if Joseph were afraid that the loved ones would not agree. Marinda Hyde's husband and Lucy Walker's father were sent away on missions, and after they left, Joseph approached with the same "commandment" and same 24-hour ultimatum.
More pimp making.
Runtu wrote:Maybe I'm mentally defective, but I don't see anything godly in any of this. I will say that these women come off as rather heroic in following what they believed. But if there is a God out there, some people have some explaining to do.
Does anyone else hear "sex addict" screamed at the top of their lungs here?
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
What I find interesting is that the defenders haven't even attempted to defend this. Not even charity has chimed in with her usual "you are just seeing the bad side because you want to" stuff.
Runtu wrote:What I find interesting is that the defenders haven't even attempted to defend this. Not even charity has chimed in with her usual "you are just seeing the bad side because you want to" stuff.
What is there to defend?
There is nothing to defend here, and I think the apologists who frequent this board know this.
This has been the most troubling aspect of the Church for me since I learned the truth about it.
Gaz, Charity, Nehor, Bob, etc., I really would be curious as to some comment. Are you just going to choose to ignore the issues that have been brought up here, and pretend they don't exist?
Runtu, do you have references for the Fanny Alger stuff?
As far as I was aware (and I'm not that up on the subject other than reading Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner) there was no evidence that Joseph ever married Fanny Alger???
Miss Taken wrote:Runtu, do you have references for the Fanny Alger stuff?
As far as I was aware (and I'm not that up on the subject other than reading Mormon Polygamy by Van Wagoner) there was no evidence that Joseph ever married Fanny Alger???
Mary
I don't have Compton's book in front of me at the moment, but he quotes Mosiah Hancock as saying that Mosiah's father, Levi, asked for Clarissa Reed's hand, and Joseph said he would agree as long as Levi convinced Fanny to marry him. I will check the source when I get home. Compton has been roundly criticized for his use of Mosiah Hancock's autobiography as a source, but he gives his reasons for accepting it.
Runtu wrote:What I find interesting is that the defenders haven't even attempted to defend this. Not even charity has chimed in with her usual "you are just seeing the bad side because you want to" stuff.
Possible approaches:
1) Discount either the stories, or the particular manner in which the stories are told. I lean towards that.
2) If I really have no choice but to believe those stories including the particular spin I hear about those stories (just because it's written by faithful LDS doesn't make 'em true ya know), then I can always lean on the old defense that God can better see what is right and wrong than we can--if we could understand as He does (which we can't) then we'd agree. It's a pathetic and lame excuse, but I hold that it is a Trump card of last resort. It's side-effect, however is in calling into questioning how we can trust God in the first place.
3) Maybe we can believe one or both answers, but we also see that feelings are so strong on the opposition that to defend it is pointless. The only thing that can or will come from attempted defenses is to piss everyone off. My asbestos suit stands ready, so flame on but don't expect any more replies from me on this subject.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Runtu wrote:What I find interesting is that the defenders haven't even attempted to defend this. Not even charity has chimed in with her usual "you are just seeing the bad side because you want to" stuff.
Possible approaches:
1) Discount either the stories, or the particular manner in which the stories are told. I lean towards that.
Why discount the firsthand accounts? And what manner in which they are told bothers you?
2) If I really have no choice but to believe those stories including the particular spin I hear about those stories (just because it's written by faithful LDS doesn't make 'em true ya know), then I can always lean on the old defense that God can better see what is right and wrong than we can--if we could understand as He does (which we can't) then we'd agree. It's a pathetic and lame excuse, but I hold that it is a Trump card of last resort. It's side-effect, however is in calling into questioning how we can trust God in the first place.
But of course.
3) Maybe we can believe one or both answers, but we also see that feelings are so strong on the opposition that to defend it is pointless. The only thing that can or will come from attempted defenses is to piss everyone off. My asbestos suit stands ready, so flame on but don't expect any more replies from me on this subject.
Nah, you won't piss me off unless you make fun of my "Puritan" view of sexuality (thanks, Will).
I just don't see any way to make any of this work. It's heartbreaking stuff.