Ray A wrote:The saddest people I know, the most deeply unhappy I know, are those "in the world". And how do they overcome this - through alcohol, denial, and believing that there is a better way. They are happy, but only temporarily, and they can't see beyond their noses.
Ray, what do you mean by this? Who are those that are "in the world"?
What I think he meant to say is 'of the world'.
As Mormons, you're counseled by the leaders to be 'in the world, but not of the world'. Meaning, don't partake of the evils of the world - alcohol, porn, pre-marital sex, masturbation, swearing, lightmindedness, loud laughter, etc.
Oh. Loud laughter? Lightmindedness? What's so awful about those?
OMG! It just dawned on me. We laugh and joke all the time at my house. I married my husband because of his humor. After we first met my face hurt for days from laughing and smiling so much. I hope my step-son doesn't think poorly of us because we enjoy humor so much.
KimberlyAnn wrote: He couldn't be counted on to tell the truth to his own wife, why should anyone trust him to tell the truth to anyone else?
The same wife who went to her grave believing he was a prophet.
Did she ever say about her husband the things you are now saying?
Do you have an explanation for that? Do you think Emma was a simpleton?
And how is this relevant Ray?
Does it mean he less of a liar that Emma didn't renounce him?
Some abused wives refuse to renounce their husbands, still love them, and insist that they are really good people after all.
Does this make the husband any less a wife abuser or any less morally culpable?
This is really slipshod reasoning.
As for an explanation, maybe Emma had something akin to battered wife syndrome. She won't have been the first women to "stand by her man," even though he did little to deserve such devotion.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
KimberlyAnn wrote: He couldn't be counted on to tell the truth to his own wife, why should anyone trust him to tell the truth to anyone else?
The same wife who went to her grave believing he was a prophet.
Did she ever say about her husband the things you are now saying?
Do you have an explanation for that? Do you think Emma was a simpleton?
And how is this relevant Ray?
Does it mean he less of a liar that Emma didn't renounce him?
Some abused wives refuse to renounce their husbands, still love them, and insist that they are really good people after all.
Does this make the husband any less a wife abuser or any less morally culpable?
This is really slipshod reasoning.
As for an explanation, maybe Emma had something akin to battered wife syndrome. She won't have been the first women to "stand by her man," even though he did little to deserve such devotion.
I didn't even reply to Ray's questions because they were so irrelevant to the matter at hand.
guy sajer wrote:As for an explanation, maybe Emma had something akin to battered wife syndrome. She won't have been the first women to "stand by her man," even though he did little to deserve such devotion.
You obviously have not read Mormon Enigma. Or, if you did, you didn't comprehend much. Find me one verse, or chapter, whch suggests that Emma suffered from "battered wife syndrome". Are you a scholar, Mr. Sajer? Reading that book, I suggest there could be a case for the opposite. You sound very PC. I'm not surprised. If Emma was a "battered wife", then I'd like to see the evidence for this.
No doubt she was forced to bear her testimony of her husband's prophetic powers. She just "didn't understand" the "con". She was "battered" into belief. No doubt.
barrelomonkeys wrote:What I don't understand about Ray, and perhaps Ray can answer, is if he feels that those that leave the Church are so wicked why doesn't he go back?
Behold another thread is beckoning. When I have time. The "Church", my dear, is not the same as "the gospel". Now I need to go beddie-by.
KimberlyAnn wrote:I didn't even reply to Ray's questions because they were so irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Please accept my apologies, "Ms. Relevant", "Ms. Know All". Obviously I don't understand women. Obviously, I understand nothing of life. 53 years all in vain. I am dumb as the day I was born. Touche.
barrelomonkeys wrote:What I don't understand about Ray, and perhaps Ray can answer, is if he feels that those that leave the Church are so wicked why doesn't he go back?
Behold another thread is beckoning. When I have time. The "Church", my dear, is not the same as "the gospel". Now I need to go beddie-by.
I think that's interesting you make a distinction. I think that's actually a very healthy way to approach it. I find much truth in gospel and yet, at times, not so much in a Church.
KimberlyAnn wrote:I didn't even reply to Ray's questions because they were so irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Please accept my apologies, "Ms. Relevant", "Ms. Know All". Obviously I don't understand women. Obviously, I understand nothing of life. 53 years all in vain. I am dumb as the day I was born. Touche.
No, Ray, I didn't say you were dumb. I don't think you're dumb at all. You're the one in the business of calling people dumb, remember?
I said your questions regarding Emma and her lies or belief in Joseph's supposed prophetic call were irrelevant, but that doesn't mean I think you're dumb.
guy sajer wrote:As for an explanation, maybe Emma had something akin to battered wife syndrome. She won't have been the first women to "stand by her man," even though he did little to deserve such devotion.
You obviously have not read Mormon Enigma. Or, if you did, you didn't comprehend much. Find me one verse, or chapter, whch suggests that Emma suffered from "battered wife syndrome". Are you a scholar, Mr. Sajer? Reading that book, I suggest there could be a case for the opposite. You sound very PC. I'm not surprised. If Emma was a "battered wife", then I'd like to see the evidence for this.
No doubt she was forced to bear her testimony of her husband's prophetic powers. She just "didn't understand" the "con". She was "battered" into belief. No doubt.
You asked for an explanation, so I floated an off-the-cuff explanation for the hell of it. It was not intended to be taken literally but merely to demonstrate that there are possible explanations out there that account for Emma's behavior and which do not necessarily vindicate her wayward hubby.
I honestly did not consider that someone would conclude that I was making any kind of an affirmative declaration.
I have not read Mormon Enigma, nor am I aware that reading this is a necessary criterion for being a scholar. I was a "scholar" of administrative theory and international development; Mormon studies is not my specialty nor a particular interest of mine. I have limited free time, and in that free time, I prefer historical books, primarily on warfare and an occasional work of fiction (Sister Fidelma mysteries is one of my guilty pleasures).
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."