Why is Joseph Smith's polygamy controversial?

[_beastie]

And, you know, I don't think that the Book of Mormon verse takes the edge off of anything. You're telling me you're ok with the idea of a cruel and malicious god because he HAD to be cruel and malicious because his followers were really rotten people??????

[_barrelomonkeys]

I like this man. I vote let's make him the prophet.

I like him too Harmony.

Here's more of his writings on older men and younger women:

I’ve spoken elsewhere about the real meaning of crushes on teachers. But "Louise" is not writing about a teacher, at least not in the formal sense. What she’s writing about is a profoundly influential cultural narrative: that of the older man who will act as a guide and a mentor as well as a lover. It’s part of an old, troubling discourse that teaches young women to eroticize knowledge, wisdom, and authority in others rather than developing it within themselves. In books and movies and popular folklore, young women are often taught that a sexual and romantic relationship with an older man will be a wonderful transaction: she will offer her youth, her sexual desirability, and her love; he will offer wisdom, insight, and guidance as she navigates the tricky waters into adulthood. It would be hard to deny that that exchange is immensely appealing for some! Louise describes the line between mentoring and erotic attraction as "blurred", and she’s right to do so. We live in a culture where an extraordinary variety of forces seek to blur that line!

http://hugoschwyzer.net/category/older-men/

*I might start an off topic on this*

[_truth dancer]

Hey Book of Mormon....


WOW... thanks for sharing this!

I'm with Harmony... lets vote him prophet! Or president! Or CEO of something! :-)

Seriously, he gets it!

He gets that women are more than objects. He gets the problem of powerful men using their power to keep women as nothing more than a body. He gets the worth of women.

He GETS it!

Thanks a bunch~

~dancer~

[_mentalgymnast]

You missed my point, MG. You are willing to accept polygamy due to the fact that God seemed to accept it in the Old Testament. But my point is that God seemed to accept a heck of a lot of things that you are not willing to accept today, and instead, create rationalizations for their existence in the Bible.

So why is polygamy ok because it seems to be accepted in the Old Testament, but killing witches or rebellious children isn't? If Joseph Smith said God revealed to him that we should kill anyone who blasphemes, would you be ok with that because God accepted it in the Old Testament?

Hi Beastie,

I hope we're really listening to each other. I think I do hear what you're saying a know where you're coming from. I am questioning whether you can fully understand where I'm coming from as one that has been and continues along the hard and bumpy road of faith. It's difficult really listen to one another in a situation like this because we're talking at each other rather that with each other.

My frustration is this. Almost every time I get into a discussion with those that have become dogmatic in their beliefs in non-belief I find myself thinking (as I elaborated in an earlier thread a month or so ago), why in the heck are these people not able to think outside of the box? And then you come back and say, well I/we are, but YOU can't be...because you still have faith/hope/belief. It's almost a catch-22.

My experience is that when alternative ways are presented by which one may look at the world and the place that faith in God can reasonably play in it, those that have become dogmatic in their non-belief...died in the wool, so to speak...seem to be somewhat blinded at even being able to think or look outside of the self constructed box of non-belief.

Non believers will say, at times, that believers will look for ANY reason to believe. It seems to me that the opposite needs to be recognized also. Many non-believers, when all is said and done, will look for any reason to doubt or not believe in God or in alternative ways of looking at faith/belief.

I've done my fair share of nit-picking...just like you do...but I like to think that there is a larger and expansive way at looking at this universe and my place in it rather that choosing the alternative of cursing God and/or his existence and die. Which to be honest, is what I think happens to some as they leave Mormonism. If Mormonism isn't true, from their POV, then God doesn't exist.

I can see why folks would go that direction. I think I probably would (without going into the litany of reasons as to why this would be so) if I came to believe that Mormonism was a sham.

by the way, I wasn't making any effort to "miss your point", I was attempting to make a point. I'm not sure if you were really listening.

We tend to talk past each other. I guess that's the nature of the beast (written text).

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

I'm trying to listen, mg, and I understand you're trying to make your own point, but I'd also like an answer to my own point as well. If you believe that you have adequately explained why you are willing to accept polygamy because God in the Bible appeared to sanction it, but would not accept mass murder although God in the Bible also sanctioned that, could you point to the part of your response that gave that explanation? Or have I completely misunderstood you and you would accept mass murder today, as well?

If you think that you can use the "presentism" magic wand to wave this all away, you're wrong. There are still people today living in situations in which they are completely convinced that God is still telling them to engage in the same sort of behavior that the God of the Old Testament sanctioned.

Besides, although culture and time period certainly influences how we think and behave, human beings are still human beings with the same drives and desires, regardless of time period. Women were just as likely to be pained and jealous at having to share their husband (witness Sarah and Hagar), parents still loved their children and wanted them to succeed, and mass murder still caused grievous injury to survivors and perpetrators. Women being accused of being witches were not witches, but were still stoned. People fell in love outside of marriage then just as today, and sometimes acted on it. People aren't completely aliens just because they live in a different timer period. When believers insist that God had to use these horrible tactics - which go far beyond punishment into outright abuse - because people were so much worse back then, I really wonder how you imagine these people being.

It's fine to "think outside the box", as long as that doesn't cloak simply ignoring problematic issues or making up rules as you go along. Is it thinking outside the box to say that you can accept polygamy because God sanctioned it in the Old Testament, but wouldn't be able to accept mass murder although God sanctioned that, as well, or is it simply being inconsistent?

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG... :-)

My experience is that when alternative ways are presented by which one may look at the world and the place that faith in God can reasonably play in it, those that have become dogmatic in their non-belief...died in the wool, so to speak...seem to be somewhat blinded at even being able to think or look outside of the self constructed box of non-belief.

What seems reasonable to you, doesn't seem reasonable to others. ;-)

Personally I do not know anyone who does NOT believe in God, who wouldn't become a believer if there were some sort of reasonable (to them), reason to believe.

I wonder if you cannot see this because you think your way of believing is reasonable. Does that make sense?

In other words, because you see your belief as reasonable, you cannot understand why others do not?

Non believers will say, at times, that believers will look for ANY reason to believe. It seems to me that the opposite needs to be recognized also.

I disagree with this... (smile). Virtually every non-believer/former believer I can think of tried REALLY hard to believe. Most often there is considerable time and effort spent to remain in the box of belief. Lots of heartache in letting go.

Many non-believers, when all is said and done, will look for any reason to doubt or not believe in God or in alternative ways of looking at faith/belief.

Again, I really disagree with this. I just do not see it at all.

Speaking from personal experience, while I believe in a sort of pantheistic/nature/universe/Source/Einsteinian/Spinozian sort of God, I would by all means believe in something different if it made sense to me, or felt right/true/good/holy.

I would say I am totally open to learning new things... I think the same goes for most non-believers.

~dancer~

[_barrelomonkeys]

Hey Book of Mormon....


WOW... thanks for sharing this!

I'm with Harmony... lets vote him prophet! Or president! Or CEO of something! :-)

Seriously, he gets it!

He gets that women are more than objects. He gets the problem of powerful men using their power to keep women as nothing more than a body. He gets the worth of women.

He GETS it!

Thanks a bunch~

~dancer~

Yah, I think I'm sort of starting to get it too!

:D

[_karl61]

This week I learned a little phrase that I had never heard before: "twin relics of barbarism" When I googled it I found that the Republican party used that thought for their compaign. They wanted to stamp out the twin relics of barbarism: slavery and polygamy. I'm sure the anti-slavery people saw polygamy as basically the same thing.