What is your best evidence for Joseph Smith sleeping with his wives?

Post by **_truth dancer** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:26 pm

Whenever I read comments by those supporting polygamy, suggesting women in the early days of the church loved it I shudder.

First... I agree there are some women who would indeed like to be in a harem. I've met a few. They do not like men, sex, or intimacy, and would rather be not be married. They would rather get the needed sperm by a male and be done with it.

Secondly... there are folks who enjoy all sorts of alternative relationships. Some of these alternative relationship most of us would consider perverted, sick, or harmful.

So, I will go along with the idea that there were, (are), women who enjoyed being one of many sexual partners to rich and powerful leaders.

Having said this, I do not get the sense that many women involved in polygamy/harems fell into either of the above catagories.

I believe most women of the day agreed to be in a harem as an "Abrahamic sacrifice." They felt they HAD to engage in order to return to God. Many felt to NOT engage would mean they and/or their loved ones would not be in the CKHL.

These GIRLS and women felt they had two choices... go along with polygamy and survive as best they could, filled with sorrow and heartache but receive their eternal rewards, OR not go along with it, try to have a normal and healthy life while being criticized and disgraced, and sacrifice their eternal salvation.

Tell me what sort of choice this is?

What fourteen year old girl should have to make such a sickening choice?

Finally, I've had the honor of visiting in depth with two women involved in the harem lifestyle. Both women were from large FLDS communities. While they honored their beliefs and would stand by them to their death, both were filled with a sorrow and heartache beyond what I can describe in words. Neither felt manipulated or coerced. Both women, when asked by someone outside their community would praise God for their husbands and their faith. And, both women lived with a broken heart.
Can people find happiness amidst horrific situations? Yes. I know plenty of women in abusive situations who find a way to cope and manage. They love their husbands. They find happiness admidst the pain and horror. Does it mean they love abuse? No!

All I can say is if God is behind the disgusting, horrific, degrading, demeaning, and heart breaking institution that is polygamy, He is not worthy of worship.

~dancer~

Post by **_Maxrep** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:48 pm

William Schryver wrote:If God wants to take certain of his sons and have them mate with certain of his daughters, it’s up to him to command them.

O.K, now I'm picturing God as a dog breeder, trying to glean certain traits for the next generation? An omniscient creator only has the recourse of "mating" a 60 year old man and a 20 year old young woman to bring about the fulfillment of the plan of salvation? Wow, it sounds like his hands were tied.

What about, "Men are that they might have joy"? Ooops...I just answered my own question. The men were having joy, just not the women.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 3:47 pm

Hey Maxrep...

O.K, now I'm picturing God as a dog breeder, trying to glean certain traits for the next generation? An omniscient creator only has the recourse of "mating" a 60 year old man and a 20 year old young woman to bring about the fulfillment of the plan of salvation? Wow, it sounds like his hands were tied.

EXCELLENT point! (sigh)

God of the Universe can't find a better way to create his chosen blood than this? WOW!

What about, "Men are that they might have joy"? Ooops...I just answered my own question. The men were having joy, just not the women.

And.... this "joy" is really about men getting off.

Nothing about the love, care, concern, compassion, unity, joy, beauty, companionship possible in a partnership... ya know?

Thinking about it in real life... how many beehives and mia maids are wanting to sleep with their Grandfather's best friend?

ahhh the whole thing is sick!

~dancer~

Post by **_William Schryver** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:49 pm

Leave it to Sethbag to, once again, awaken me to the utter futility of attempting to discuss any of these things on this message board. I must have been crazy, expecting that, somehow, the results of the experiment would be different this time.

So, I’ll leave all of you to your rage and unshakable certainty in historical reality. Although I can understand, to an extent, that you have come to feel supremely betrayed by something you once believed to be the truth, I cannot deal with the frothy-mouthed excesses that so often accompany your anger. One day you’ll probably get over it and settle down to living the rest of your lives. I’m just not willing to play spectator to your “working through it” in the meantime.

Ciao …

Post by **_barrelomonkeys** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:57 pm

Another one bites the dust...

GOOOO SETHBAG!

Sethbag is ready
Sethbag is smooth
Sethbag will take control
And stomp all over you!
GOOOO SETHBAG!

Post by **_Maxrep** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:09 pm

barrelomonkeys wrote:Another one bites the dust...

GOOOO SETHBAG!

Sethbag is ready
Sethbag is smooth
Sethbag will take control
And stomp all over you!
GOOOO SETHBAG!

I'm pretty sure the blonde girl on the right just winked at me. :)

Post by **_Sethbag** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:45 pm

William Schryver wrote:Leave it to Sethbag to, once again, awaken me to the utter futility of attempting to discuss any of these things on this message board. I must have been crazy, expecting that, somehow, the results of the experiment would be different this time.

So, I’ll leave all of you to your rage and unshakable certainty in historical reality. Although I can understand, to an extent, that you have come to feel supremely betrayed by something you once believed to be the truth, I cannot deal with the frothy-mouthed excesses that so often accompany your anger. One day you’ll probably get over it and settle down to living the rest of your lives. I’m just not willing to play spectator to your “working through it” in the meantime.

Ciao …

Will, I'm sorry to have been so blunt about it, but the bottom line is that you believe that coercion, manipulation, deception, and what amounts to marital infidelity are in fact the attributes of a God in embryo; that Joseph Smith was in fact fulfilling the requirements of his God to become Celestial in nature and prepare to receive glory and power in the eternities, by "marrying" and having sex with women behind his wife's back and lying about it. By "marrying" and having sex with women behind their living husbands' backs. By manipulating and coercing young girls into relationships which they obviously didn't want, and tried to refuse, but eventually gave in to after much persuasion and promises of rewards in the hereafter. You honestly think that this is what Gods do. You believe that Gods in the Celestial Kingdom get that way by acting like this.

It has to be blunt to hammer home the message. There are such obvious contradictions here between the LDS notion of a righteous, all-loving, all-caring, kind and considerate God, and the behaviour of Joseph Smith. Maybe it takes being so blunt about it to finally see the picture for what it really is, through the haze of "adoring history" and mopologetic excuse-making and prevarication. TBMs are so used to singing "Praise to the Man" and holding up Joseph Smith as a righteous, Godly man, who has already ascended to his Celestial throne and is already a God, that they literally cannot see, or do not or will not or cannot allow themselves to see how biased and flawed this assessment is. It's important that people know and understand what it is they actually believe. If you honestly believe that Joseph Smith's dishonesty, deception, coercion, and all the rest really were the actions God demanded of him in order to prove his worthiness to become a God himself, then fine, that's your choice, and I'll back off.

But make no mistake here, this is really what it's all about. Do you honestly believe that the LDS God requires one to prove one's potential for Godliness through deception, coercion, and secret sex behind one's wife's back with already-married women? Is this really what Gods do? Is this really the pattern of behaviour that proves that one is Celestial material?

Post by **_beastie** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 5:58 pm

Frankly, Will, considering that you view Pahoran's style of posting fine and dandy, it is shocking that you so easily took offense to seth's comments.

Post by **_William Schryver** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:38 pm

beastie wrote:Frankly, Will, considering that you view Pahoran's style of posting fine and dandy, it is shocking that you so easily took offense to seth's comments.

After a second reading, I've now sighed to myself and decided I've heard worse. That doesn't change the fact that it is nearly impossible to make someone like Seth recognize the subtle difference between his way of discussing these things and the method employed by people like The Dude, Chris Smith, and Dan Vogel. I understand that Seth feels very passionately offended by his interpretation of the history of "Sex in Nauvoo." The problem, as I see it, is that his interpretation is not the only way of looking at the so-called "facts" of the matter.

But above all, it was my mistake to even enter into a discussion of these things on this board. The feelings of the exmo crowd are much too strong and lurking too close to the surface for this topic to be discussed in a dispassionate manner. Kimberly Ann can only see vicious misogyny and Seth can only see rampant licentiousness.

The bottom line is that if I choose to post here in the future, I will strictly limit myself to the superficial in order to avoid scenes like this. As I once mentioned to Kimberly Ann, I love my heathen and apostate friends, but I've learned that there are just some things you avoid when in conversation with them. I must remember that rule when I choose to play in this sandbox.

Have a nice weekend, I'm off to the recording studio for an afternoon of bass guitar tracks ...

Post by **_KimberlyAnn** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:01 pm

William Schryver wrote:The bottom line is that if I choose to post here in the future, I will strictly limit myself to the superficial in order to avoid scenes like this.

Will, it wasn't my intent to create a "scene" which was offensive to you. In fact, I bit my tongue in my reply to you in order to spare you offense, but it seems I was too late. I do feel Mormonism is misogynistic, as well as many other religions, which I mentioned in my post. We'll just have to not talk about that, I guess. Maybe I should put a little asterisk on the threads I start which are safe for you to read! Or give them a rating, like AW, "Approved for Will". ;)

KA