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

[_William Schryver]

Hey, Brickbat:

Who are you talking to? Because it sure seems like you're carrying on a conversation with yourself.

Have you been doing this since you were a little boy?

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

… women who desire more than one husband will get rewarded according to their desires …

There aren’t as many of you as you might think.

I disagree with you and challenge you, so I'm a snarly woman who only deserves eunuchs.

Hardly.

I’m pretty sure that even if you didn’t disagree with or challenge me, you’d still be “a snarly woman who only deserves eunuchs” for company.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Schryver is following the Gospel of the Snarky Jesus, who's a little different from the regular one.

[_beastie]

There aren’t as many of you as you might think.

Oh, I don’t have desires for anyone other than my soulmate. However, if I did imagine an after life in which God “rewarded” me with multiple partners, I hope I would be fair enough to allow my partner that same right and privilege. You are not, and that is what I find objectionable. You try to dress it up with "social ills", but it's quite apparent.

by the way, you’re living in a fantasy if you imagine that women are, by nature, any more monogamous than men. I know it's a fantasy that many men have comforted themselves with from time memorable, but it's a fantasy nonetheless. Ask all the cuckolded men throughout history for verification.

I’m pretty sure that even if you didn’t disagree with or challenge me, you’d still be “a snarly woman who only deserves eunuchs” for company.

Nonsense. I’m snarly and Harmony is insolent because we disagree with you. That sense of male entitlement is one thing I definitely don’t miss about Mormonism. I don’t miss being “uppity” for having my own thoughts that may conflict with whatever priesthood holder was within sneezing distance.

[_Nevo]

Was there really a surplus of Females within the LDS Church, at the time some of the LDS Males were Practicing Polygamy? The Answer to that Question is No.

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.

[_beastie]

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.

There seems to be a problem with the cause/effect assumption here. Since polygamous marriages had to take place in the temple, of course more women would end up with temple recommends than men. Moreover, it doesn't take into account that some men might have been more willing alter their behavior to please their more believing spouse. Plenty of LDS men do that today.

[_William Schryver]

beastlie:

by the way, you’re living in a fantasy if you imagine that women are, by nature, any more monogamous than men. I know it's a fantasy that many men have comforted themselves with from time memorable, but it's a fantasy nonetheless.

Sure they are!

They start out like this:


And end up like this:

That sense of male entitlement is one thing I definitely don’t miss about Mormonism.

All these years, and your neo-feminist persecution complex is still stoking your resentments.

I don’t miss being “uppity” for having my own thoughts that may conflict with whatever priesthood holder was within sneezing distance.

I’m sure they never thought you were “uppity.” They just thought you were snarly eunuch bait with a run amok case of penis envy.

There’s a difference, you know.

[_Brackite]

Brickbat:

Here is again how Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 30 is correctly interpreted and read:

Thus saith the Prophet Brickbat!

What, did you not know?

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And, lest there be any confusion or doubt, I will state categorically that your interpretation is WRONG. Very, very, very WRONG.

So there.

Where is the evidence in the Book of Mormon that the Phrase 'Raise up seed unto the Lord' means the Lord God Commanding Polygyny??? I have already provide the Evidence that the Lord God commanded Nephi and his brethren to marry Monagomously to raise up seed unto the Lord.
Now, Here is again 1 Nephi 7:1, Compared to 1 Nephi 16:7-8:

1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.


1 Nephi 16:7-8:

[7] And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

[8] And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.

Now, Here is Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 27:

[27] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

And, Why were the Lehites Commanded to only have one wife each? Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 28 has Pretty Much The Answer to that Question.

And, Here is Jacob Chapter Two, Verse 28:

[28] For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

The Lord God of the Book of Mormon, Equates Polygamy with Whoredoms.

And, Whoredoms are an Abomination before the Lord God.


I am Anti-Polygamy.

I do believe in the Book of Mormon teachings on Marriage.

I believe in the traditional definition of Marriage. which is one man and one woman.

I do believe in Monogamy.


What does William really believe about Marriage?

Is William really Pro-Polygyny?

[_KimberlyAnn]

by the way, you’re living in a fantasy if you imagine that women are, by nature, any more monogamous than men. I know it's a fantasy that many men have comforted themselves with from time memorable, but it's a fantasy nonetheless. Ask all the cuckolded men throughout history for verification.

I think many men comfort themselves with that thought because the truth is too emasculating. The truth is that women have the ability to enjoy sex much more than men, much more frequently, and for much longer, viagra not withstanding.

Women, if we so choose, can have sex with one partner after another in rapid succession and enjoy it each time. Physically, there is nothing stopping us from climaxing hourly if that's our choice. It makes perfect sense, sexually, for a woman to have multiple partners. Not so much for men.

Now whether or not a woman wants multiple partners is another matter, but the fact is that should we choose to have multiple partners, we have the ability to keep them and ourselves quite satisfied. Not so with men, excepting Antonio Banderas, of course.


KA

[_harmony]

by the way, you’re living in a fantasy if you imagine that women are, by nature, any more monogamous than men. I know it's a fantasy that many men have comforted themselves with from time memorable, but it's a fantasy nonetheless. Ask all the cuckolded men throughout history for verification.

I think many men comfort themselves with that thought because the truth is too emasculating. The truth is that women have the ability to enjoy sex much more than men, much more frequently, and for much longer, viagra not withstanding.

Women, if we so choose, can have sex with one partner after another in rapid succession and enjoy it each time. Physically, there is nothing stopping us from climaxing hourly if that's our choice. It makes perfect sense, sexually, for a woman to have multiple partners. Not so much for men.

Now whether or not a woman wants multiple partners is another matter, but the fact is that should we choose to have multiple partners, we have the ability to keep them and ourselves quite satisfied. Not so with men, excepting Antonio Banderas, of course.


KA

And thus the invention of the vibrator. I wonder if the inventor was Mormon?