What if polygamy was never practiced?

[juliann]

Hey, I remember that movie.  "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield.  That was the scene where he was in the big room all by himslef and the "stuffy" business/economics professor made a complete jerk of himself by asking some ridiculous question to Rodney because he was trying to impress everyone around him with such a ridicuolus question.  Don't tell me you had the understudy part!  Dang, you play a pretty good stuffy jerk too when you want.

Juliann,

Get off my case or provide substance to your harrassment. 

Should I just assume when I am addressing charity I should address both of you!

That was an impressive display of reason and intellect. The very reason for using sources and documentation is to prevent what you are doing now...appealing to name-calling to make your very weak case.

The determining concept of network theory is, as J. Clyde Mitchell explains, that

[charity]

Anna, you either can say what "every respect" you think the Church is weaker in for having practiced plural marriage, or you can't. Have you nothing specific to base your belief on?

I have heard a lot of people on this board, who are not members or who are former members, and they have never said they either didn't join or they left because of plural marriage. You guys I just described can correct me if I am wrong. And I will go back through and check your posts to see if you have ever stated such with your disaffections.

And I think you should realize that the avoidance that you see is largely in the eye of the beholder. Because there are so many of us who do not see any such thing.

[juliann]

It is a part of the churches past that, by all candid discussion I've had with members and non-members, seems to be a deterent to those questioning the Church's claims. Such seems to be supported by comments from lds posters on this thread.

This might be more impressive if you could produce something besides endless posts delineating what you "think" and Rodney Dangerfield movies.

[Anna]

Hey, I remember that movie.  "Back to School" with Rodney Dangerfield.  That was the scene where he was in the big room all by himslef and the "stuffy" business/economics professor made a complete jerk of himself by asking some ridiculous question to Rodney because he was trying to impress everyone around him with such a ridicuolus question.  Don't tell me you had the understudy part!  Dang, you play a pretty good stuffy jerk too when you want.

Juliann,

Get off my case or provide substance to your harrassment. 

Should I just assume when I am addressing charity I should address both of you!

That was an impressive display of reason and intellect. The very reason for using sources and documentation is to prevent what you are doing now...appealing to name-calling to make your very weak case.

The determining concept of network theory is, as J. Clyde Mitchell explains, that

[juliann]

Frankly, had the church never practiced polygamy, I believe there is no question the Church would be much stronger today in virtually every respect. Polygamy certainly did not provide us with anything in any respect that monogamy would not have.

I'm merely countering your own comments, Anna. So far you have mocked Charity's screenname as not being descriptive of her...you have called me names and made really big threatening noises.

When you make uniformed statements based on bigotry you need to be prepared to back them up. Do it.

Why does network theory not apply to Mormons?

[Anna]

So far you have mocked Charity's screenname as not being descriptive of her.

Please provide the "mock" and context to such statement. Please.

you have called me names and made really big threatening noises.

Again, please provide the specifics and the context to such.

When you make uniformed statements based on bigotry you need to be prepared to back them up. Do it.

Please provide such specifics and the definitional context of "bigotry".

I have no idea what it is you are referring to and can only sense anger and hostility from you right now.

Why does network theory not apply to Mormons?

As I've asked before, as the author of this thread, please set up your own threads and invite those who wish to participate to do so. It is not the topic of this thread and you are derailing my thread.

Juliann, this has become your commen tactic towards me. Make a bunch of unspecified statements, try and change the thread, and do it all with the special status you have to this board.

This is so unprofessional.

[Free From Mo's]

Annie Tanner suffered, too, from a growing disillusionment with the religious underpinnings of polygamy, and a conscious realization that many of her humiliations had been suffered for a cause in which she could no longer believe. Eventually she came also to doubt what she had been taught as a child, that women were less than equal to men in intellect and talent.

When writing this memoir in 1941, as an old woman of seventy-seven, she reproduced the evolution of her feelings and intellectual convictions with clarity and eloquence. The book is in no sense an attack on her church. "Our religion," she writes, "gave us power to endure." Her complaints are muted, her restraint extraordinary. Nevertheless, the portrait of her husband that emerges from her recollections, letters, and diary entries is that of a narcissistic, self-indulgent man who abused his wives and children. One suspects that the writing was a catharsis long overdue in her life. The memoir speaks to all women who have shared their husbands with other women, and in a different sense it has a message, too, for all men who have fantasies of the presumed delights of the polygamous life.

[juliann]

So far you have mocked Charity's screenname as not being descriptive of her.

Please provide the "mock" and context to such statement. Please.

Sure...here ya go: "charity, your name is becoming less applicable. Tell you what though. I won't stand in judgement of you if, you can take up the teachings of Christ and not stand in judgement of me! "

you have called me names and made really big threatening noises.

Again, please provide the specifics and the context to such.

" Don't tell me you had the understudy part! Dang, you play a pretty good stuffy jerk too when you want. "

"If I'm gonna get invinted to a "cat fight", I'd at least like to know why!"

"Get off my case or provide substance to your harrassment."

As I've asked before, as the author of this thread, please set up your own threads and invite those who wish to participate to do so.  It is not the topic of this thread and you are derailing my thread. 

Nice. You demand to be shown where you said what you said...and ignore it to order me off a message board. Network theory is right on topic....which is why you are playing 20 Questions. You made the claim that polygamy did nothing for the church that monogamy could not have. I gave you network theory. You need to respond instead of spouting more nonsense. You stop derailing the thread.

This is so unprofessional.

No kidding.

[juliann]

Nevertheless, the portrait of her husband that emerges from her recollections, letters, and diary entries is that of a narcissistic, self-indulgent man who abused his wives and children. One suspects that the writing was a catharsis long overdue in her life. The memoir speaks to all women who have shared their husbands with other women, and in a different sense it has a message, too, for all men who have fantasies of the presumed delights of the polygamous life.

That would be really impressive....if only Mormon men were bums. How much better it was in monogamy...if you didnt' mind a little syphilis.

Repeated pregnancies and childbirths meant tremendous wear and tear on a woman

[Free From Mo's]

That would be really impressive....if only Mormon men were bums. How much better it was in monogamy...if you didnt' mind a little syphilis.

Never given that idealogy much thought. So non-mormon men are bums????

[charity]

Anna, just in case you didn't remember. This is the "mock" and context. You said:

"charity, your name is becoming less applicable. Tell you what though. I won't stand in judgement of you if, you can take up the teachings of Christ and not stand in judgement of me!" That was what you said.

And I would still like to know what "respects" you think the Church is weak in because of polygamy.

[charity]

Free: I have not read Annie Tanner's autobiography. But if I may speak to the miseries of marriage of a self-indulgent, narcissistic man who abuses a wife or wives and children. This is not a condition of polygamy. This is a condition of an individual man who is wicked and dysfunctional. My daughter was married to one. Monogamously. If he hadn't deserted her and their children so she could divorce him after only five years of marraige, she could have written some really sad account of a terrible life herself.

I think probalby there were some plural wives who were shrews or worse as well. People are people. But just as we wouldn't condemn mongamy because some people are faithless, cruel, etc. we should not condemn polygamy.

[Anna]

Sure...here ya go: "charity, your name is becoming less applicable. Tell you what though. I won't stand in judgement of you if, you can take up the teachings of Christ and not stand in judgement of me! "

Much as I suspected with you Juliann, you would not have the professionalim to provide the context as I specifically asked for you to do. So I will. My post above was in direct response to charity's accusation of:

You do not accept God's commands.

Sorry, but I do not find such accusation very charitable. Would you?

" Don't tell me you had the understudy part! Dang, you play a pretty good stuffy jerk too when you want. "

Again, you did not provide the context as I had asked. That was a humorous parable to your ridiculous question and attempted thread derailment of:

Please use your renowned reason and intellect and tell us why Malina's model of social bonds and religious leanings would not be relevant to any other new religion. Then explain, with references, what differences it would make.

That had nothing to do with the topic, but all to do with you just wanting to act like the character in the movie I described. Again, we need to put in "context". In "context", if the shoe fits, well......

"If I'm gonna get invinted to a "cat fight", I'd at least like to know why!"

"Get off my case or provide substance to your harrassment."

This was not "name calling" dear. This was a candid assessment of what you were attempting to do and a request. Again, it is much different when you provide the "context".

Nice. You demand to be shown where you said what you said...and ignore it to order me off a message board.

I did not "order" anything. I ask that you set up your own thread as, I did not find it, and still don't, applicable to the thread that I authored. Other than your "emotions" running amock, where do you find that you were being "ordered off any message board".

Really, get it together girl.

You made the claim that polygamy did nothing for the church that monogamy could not have.

I still maintain that claim. I believe it to be a very logical statement for which I have seen little on this thread that would persuade me to think otherwise. You certainly have provided nothing in specific substance other than anger and hostility.

I gave you network theory. You need to respond instead of spouting more nonsense.

Juliann, I could give you "Einstein's theory of relativity" in every post on this board and make the exact same statement you just did.

Until I demonstrate how it is relevant, and put it into a specific context of a specific issue, it really is nothing more that spouting academic cliches of nonsense.

Please give us something a little more applicable than some out of context cut and paste quote. Please. Relate your quote to what the church would not have today via monogamy that is has as a result of polygamy, and how it is better off because of it. Network "theory" and all.

Show us something.

[juliann]

And I would still like to know what "respects" you think the Church is weak in because of polygamy.

Anna has declared that "off-topic".

As Rodney Stark observed in his studies, religious commitments tend to follow the lines of personal loyalties to friends and relatives.  That seemingly unimportant persons, unknown to the pages of theology textbooks, so strongly influenced the [Origenist] controvery

[Anna]

Hmmm....I wonder if making complex relationships through intermarriage would have cemented the theology of an embattled group and created more committed Mormons rather than less .

That obvioulsy makes no sense.

If polygamy had anything to do with strengthening a theology and/or making a group more committed, it would have been used in a much greater practice than what the church leads people to believe was in rare circumstances. Nice try though.

Also, if such was the case, I would expect the Church to be proud of this affect and the practice itself. We know such is not the case merely by checking out this website and the complete avoidance of non-polygamous wives of prophets (in clear distinction to the monogamous ones):

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

But send them your "networking" theory and maybe they'll change!

Again, nice try Juliann.

[juliann]

Here...I will take out some of the words for you.

Structures of relationships

[juliann]

That obvioulsy makes no sense.

Now why doesn't that surprise me at all....

If polygamy had anything to do with strengthening a theology and/or making a group more committed, it would have been used in a much greater practice than what the church leads people to believe was in rare circumstances.   

OK. <cough> Produce some evidence. You know...documentation? Data? Does that make sense to you?

[Anna]

Here...I will take out some of the words for you.

Structures of relationships

[Anna]

That obvioulsy makes no sense.

Now why doesn't that surprise me at all....

Because you make a lot of statements that make no sense?

OK, I give up, why?

[juliann]

I'm requesting a moderator in here, Anna. I understand that you don't get it. But I have asked you for documentation for your claims and accusations. You don't need to comprehend a thing I am saying to produce that. So stop stalling and stop name-calling.

[Anna]

I'm requesting a moderator in here, Anna. I understand that you don't get it. But I have asked you for documentation for your claims and accusations. You don't need to comprehend a thing I am saying to produce that. So stop stalling and stop name-calling.

As have I asked for you to explain the applicability of your statements.

I had asked for a moderator assistance earlier on this thread regarding your behavior as well. (But I'm sure you may know that already as my request may have even been taken by you)

I suspect you will get results, given your privaledged status, where I could not.

You seem to have trouble with being treated as you treat others.

Oh well take your ball and go home.

[catholic]

What if the Church never practiced polygamy?

I will answer this question as a non-LDS and to stop the 'drama' between three people...

As an outsider would I join the LDS church if they never practiced polygamy? No...it has no bearing...many religions have an awful past and do things 'commanded by God'

As an outsider would I join the LDS church if polygamy was better communicated and express what current members feel about the situation other than 'this is what God wanted' Yes...

As an outsider would I join the LDS church if the church was created before 1820ish and polygamy was part of the church's past, Yes....

I think the problem is that LDS faces more scrutnity for only being about 250 years old...

[sunstoned]

What if the Church never practiced polygamy?

This is a big what if question. I think things would be very different today if Joseph Smith would have remained faithful to Emma.

First, I think the church in Kirkland would have seen less persecution. Joseph wouldn

[charity]

And if Joseph had lived to be 85 years old, it would have been the millenium and we wouldn't all be here on the message board, having too much more important things to do with our time. Those of us who weren't burned as stubble, of course.

[Observer]

And if Joseph had lived to be 85 years old, it would have been the millenium and we wouldn't all be here on the message board, having too much more important things to do with our time. Those of us who weren't burned as stubble, of course.

Truly sad, Charity. That you include a cute little smiley face while inserting your "Those of us who weren't burned as stubble" remark does not speak well of your chosen alias. Does the thought of people burning give you the giggles? Will you sit on your perch high above, giggle and stick out your tongue in silly fashion as people are "burned as stubble"?

So the mob that murdered Joseph Smith not only killed the Lord's prophet, but they even altered the outcome of God's revelations and brought the entire Millennium and the Savior's return to a screeching halt? Do you think the men in that mob were truly after Joseph Smith, or were they possibly aware they had the power to literally pause the return of the Savior, millennium and forever alter the time-line of the Lord? Did they possibly intend to stall their own demise of being "burned as stubble"?