Harvard professor tells of Mormon diaries during MU lecture

"Their attitudes, at times, also became bitter."

Seems that many still are.

Try living in Utah. You'll see what I mean.

"When asked by an audience member if polygamy led to a greater subjugation of women during the 19th century, she said there is "evidence that many women felt liberated" and that POLYGAMY WAS ALMOST ALWAYS ABOUT FERTILITY."

"There was the thought that "EVERY WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE A MOTHER," she said. Although Ulrich didn't deny that misogyny existed within the community, she did point out that "very few men had lots of wives.""

Those are interesting claims in light of the statements by Mormon apologists that Joseph Smith didn't consummate his 'marriages' to fourteen year-old girls and other men's wives.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Dic wrote:

"Their attitudes, at times, also became bitter."
Seems that many still are.
Try living in Utah. You'll see what I mean.

Because, of course, there's absolutly no bitterness towards the Church of Jesus Christ to be found anywhere. Especially here.

Dagobert II wrote:

"When asked by an audience member if polygamy led to a greater subjugation of women during the 19th century, she said there is "evidence that many women felt liberated" and that POLYGAMY WAS ALMOST ALWAYS ABOUT FERTILITY."
"There was the thought that "EVERY WOMAN SHOULD HAVE THE CHANCE TO BE A MOTHER," she said. Although Ulrich didn't deny that misogyny existed within the community, she did point out that "very few men had lots of wives.""

Those are interesting claims in light of the statements by Mormon apologists that Joseph Smith didn't consummate his 'marriages' to fourteen year-old girls and other men's wives.

Thank you, Dagobert, for demonstrating a textbook example of a popular logical fallacy. You can read about it here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/divi...

Open mouth. Change feet.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, what EVIDENCE do you have that would lead us to believe that Joe's marriages to fourteen year-old girls and other men's wives was not about fertility and motherhood, besides his use of Dr. Bennett for abortions?

Then again, maybe that's enough evidence that Joe's polygamy 'revelation' was really all about Joe's lust.

Dagobert II wrote:

Pahoran, what EVIDENCE do you have that would lead us to believe that Joe's marriages to fourteen year-old girls and other men's wives was not about fertility and motherhood, besides his use of Dr. Bennett for abortions?

It clearly takes all the courage you possess -- i.e. no courage at all -- to libel someone who is unable to defend himself.

Bennett performed abortions to cover up his own adulteries. That is a fact. The accusation that he ever did them on Joseph's behalf is a lie, beloved of liars.

You eagerly seized upon Professor Ulrich's general statement and applied it to Joseph *when it suited you*, but blithely ignore the fact that your vile (and therefore self-expressive) accusation about Bennett is *at least equally* contraindicated by Ulrich's remarks, because it *doesn't* suit your hate-based agenda to notice that.

Joseph fathered a large family with Emma, but there are still no conclusive evidence that he fathered any children with any of his plural wives. That is not to say that he never consummated any of his plural marriages; as you perfectly well know, no LDS apologist has ever made such a claim, and those who say they have are consciously lying; but it does indicate that his sexual activity in his plural marriages was nowhere near as high as "scum people" like to fantasise.

Dagobert II wrote:

Then again, maybe that's enough evidence that Joe's polygamy 'revelation' was really all about Joe's lust.

Actually there is *no* evidence in support of that accusation. It merely reflects upon the worthless minds of the worthless people who make it.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
It clearly takes all the courage you possess -- i.e. no courage at all -- to libel someone who is unable to defend himself.[QUOTE] Wow! Your legal scholarship is evidently on par with the rest of your knowledge. The dead can not be libeled.

[QUOTE who="Pahoran"]You eagerly seized upon Professor Ulrich's general statement and applied it to Joseph *when it suited you*, but blithely ignore the fact that your vile (and therefore self-expressive) accusation about Bennett is *at least equally* contraindicated by Ulrich's remarks, because it *doesn't* suit your hate-based agenda to notice that.

Hate-filled? Hardly. Whether Joe was copulating with 14 year-old girls and other men's wives for pleasure or progeny or both is about as relevant in determining his status as the price a prostitute charges for services is relevant in determining her status. Copulatin' Joe has established himself as a pedophile and adulterer as well as being a criminally convicted con man.

Pahoran wrote:

Joseph fathered a large family with Emma, but there are still no conclusive evidence that he fathered any children with any of his plural wives. That is not to say that he never consummated any of his plural marriages; as you perfectly well know, no LDS apologist has ever made such a claim, and those who say they have are consciously lying; but it does indicate that his sexual activity in his plural marriages was nowhere near as high as "scum people" like to fantasise.

The few known children of Copulatin' Joe's adultery would depend upon what his friend Dr. Bennett did with them.

"In her 1886 interview with "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist W. Wyl", Sarah Pratt alleged that Joseph Smith allowed Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions on Smith's polygamous wives who were officially single. In a public charge "that was likely true," according to author Andrew Smith, Bennett was accused by many of performing abortions, including Hyrum Smith; Zeruiah Goddard claimed Bennett told Sarah Pratt "that he could cause abortion with perfect safety to the mother at any stage of pregnancy, and that he had frequently destroyed and removed infants before their time to prevent exposure of the parties, and that he had instruments for that purpose." If the women refused, Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval. Sarah Pratt herself recounted an incident in which
“[Bennett was en route to do] "a little job for Joseph [because] one of his women was in trouble." Saying this, he took [out] a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered.”

Pratt also related her observations of Bennett's work for Joseph Smith to Smith's son Joseph Smith III,
“ I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him:'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered:'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him:'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened.'" Source: http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.h...

Dagobert II wrote:

<quoted text>
Hate-filled? Hardly.

Oh yes you are. The hatred in your posts is palpable.

Dagobert II wrote:

Whether Joe was copulating with 14 year-old girls and other men's wives for pleasure or progeny or both is about as relevant in determining his status as the price a prostitute charges for services is relevant in determining her status.

Quoted to show the gratuitous and self-revealing vileness that pervades your posts. See Luke 6:45.

Dagobert II wrote:

Copulatin' Joe has established himself as a pedophile and adulterer as well as being a criminally convicted con man.

Three lies in one sentence. Joseph practiced plural marriage in secret, not adultery; he was not a pedophile because he was never linked *even remotely* to pre-pubescent children, and there is no evidence that any of his sealings to younger teenage girls were consummated; and he was never convicted of any crime, including in 1826.(Yes I know well the standard hate-based drivel you are regurgitating.)

But I do not expect these facts to slow you down for a second.

Dagobert II wrote:

The few known children of Copulatin' Joe's adultery would depend upon what his friend Dr. Bennett did with them.

Bennett was excommunicated from the Church for his activities, which were carried on without Joseph's knowledge.

Unlike your lies, which you *willingly* and *knowingly* promulgate.

Dagobert II wrote:

"In her 1886 interview with "vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist W. Wyl",

Only comparatively; he was nowhere near as vitriolic as you, for example.

Dagobert II wrote:

Sarah Pratt alleged that Joseph Smith allowed Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions on Smith's polygamous wives who were officially single. In a public charge "that was likely true," according to author Andrew Smith, Bennett was accused by many of performing abortions, including Hyrum Smith;

Yes, Bennett was secretly performing abortions to cover up HIS adulteries.

His. Not Joseph's.

Sarah Pratt was one of his many mistresses.

The irony here -- which you are too obtuse to grasp -- is that you are relying upon a version of events that is filtered through Bennett's own libels. You are condemning an *image* of Joseph; an image that is *nothing more* than a projection of John C. Bennett.

And an image which, as all informed non-bigots know, is simply not true.

I reiterate: what you say about Bennett is true. Projecting the blame onto Joseph is a lie.

I don't know whether you already know that or not; but I am 100% confident that you would repeat the lie just as enthusiastically whether you knew it or not.

Because it matches perfectly to your hate-based agenda.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh yes you are. The hatred in your posts is palpable.

Joseph practiced plural marriage in secret, not adultery; he was not a pedophile because he was never linked *even remotely* to pre-pubescent children, and there is no evidence that any of his sealings to younger teenage girls were consummated; and he was never convicted of any crime, including in 1826.(Yes I know well the standard hate-based drivel you are regurgitating.)
But I do not expect these facts to slow you down for a second.
<quoted text>
Bennett was excommunicated from the Church for his activities, which were carried on without Joseph's knowledge.
Unlike your lies, which you *willingly* and *knowingly* promulgate.
<quoted text>
Only comparatively; he was nowhere near as vitriolic as you, for example.
<quoted text>
Yes, Bennett was secretly performing abortions to cover up HIS adulteries.
His. Not Joseph's.
Sarah Pratt was one of his many mistresses.
The irony here -- which you are too obtuse to grasp -- is that you are relying upon a version of events that is filtered through Bennett's own libels. You are condemning an *image* of Joseph; an image that is *nothing more* than a projection of John C. Bennett.
And an image which, as all informed non-bigots know, is simply not true.
I reiterate: what you say about Bennett is true. Projecting the blame onto Joseph is a lie.
I don't know whether you already know that or not; but I am 100% confident that you would repeat the lie just as enthusiastically whether you knew it or not.
Because it matches perfectly to your hate-based agenda.
Regards,
Pahoran

I see you are a follower of Boyd K. Packer's school of deception which tells Mormons to 'tell it 'til they sell it' to themselves and others.

"Bear testimony of the things that you hope are true, as an act of faith." Mormon Elder Boyd K. Packer,'The Candle of the Lord', Ensign, January 1983

How 'bout "I don't need no stinkin' facts. I got revelation."

"For there is that spiritual process, described by the Prophet Joseph Smith, by which pure intelligence can flow into our minds and we can know what we need to know without either the drudgery of study or the passage of time, for it is revelation." Boyd again, same article.

By the way, I suspect that's how revelatin' Joe must have 'translated' his Book of Abraham from an Egyptian papyrus that said nothing about Abraham or anything else Joe 'translated' it to say.

For Mormons, it would appear, facts and reality are not even a speed bump on the path of deception.

Why don't you try to convince us again how it is possible to have a copper Book of Mormon that would be light enough for Emma to 'heft' around the house while dusting.

Dagobert II wrote:

<quoted text>
I see you are a follower of Boyd K. Packer's school of deception which tells Mormons to 'tell it 'til they sell it' to themselves and others.

So, having lost the argument, you resort to the tried and true scatter-gun approach.

Keep on slinging that mud, Dagobert. Maybe some of it will stick sometime.

In the meantime, my arguments remain unaddressed; which means they are unrefuted.

Contrary to your persistent lies, the facts are on *our* side.

Snipped the mindless frothings.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
So, having lost the argument, you resort to the tried and true scatter-gun approach.
Keep on slinging that mud, Dagobert. Maybe some of it will stick sometime.
In the meantime, my arguments remain unaddressed; which means they are unrefuted.
Contrary to your persistent lies, the facts are on *our* side.
Snipped the mindless frothings.
Regards,
Pahoran

If the facts were on your side you wouldn't have to call them lies in an attempt to refute them.

The most basic FACT of the matter is that it is Mormons who present the scam of a criminally convicted con man, adulterer and pedophile and ask other folks to suspend reason and accept his scam as 'revelation'.

Dagobert II wrote:

<quoted text>
If the facts were on your side you wouldn't have to call them lies in an attempt to refute them.

I call your falsehoods lies because that's what they are.

Dagobert II wrote:

The most basic FACT of the matter is that it is Mormons who present the scam of a criminally convicted con man, adulterer and pedophile and ask other folks to suspend reason and accept his scam as 'revelation'.

For instance, there are four lies in one sentence. Now for the *real* facts:

1) Joseph was never convicted of any crime. Ever. Not in 1826 nor in any other year.

2) Joseph practiced plural marriage in secret. Plural marriage is not adultery.

3) There is no evidence that Joseph had any sexual interest in any pre-pubescent child anywhere, ever. Therefore he was not a pedophile.

So, in respect of points 2 and 3, you can stop being jealous of him.

4) Joseph died for his beliefs. In the eyes of everyone less bigoted than you and the local imperial wizard, that at least earns him the right to be regarded as sincere. That does not obligate you to accept that his teachings are right, of course; but all normally functioning people understand that people can sincerely hold different views. Those who can't accept that fact are known as "bigots."

Regards,
Pahoran

Yep, copulatin' Joe was so sincere he tried to keep his depravity a secret and ordered the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed when it let the cat out of the bag.

Even were he a sincere degenerate, pervert, and liar, copulatin' Joe was still a degenerate, pervert and liar. But I'm sure he had his good qualities too. After all, even Hitler (who was baptised into the Mormon Church at the London Temple) was sincere and a lover of dogs.

Dogbreath II wrote:

Yep, copulatin' Joe was so sincere he tried to keep his depravity a secret and ordered the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed when it let the cat out of the bag.

Not quite.

The *Nauvoo city council*, with Joseph as mayor, ordered the "Expositor" press destroyed when it published a *distorted and inflammatory* account of polygamy, including an *utterly fictitious* story that was *intentionally designed* to rouse the local rabble into mob action.

Dogbreath II wrote:

Even were he a sincere degenerate, pervert, and liar,

You'd admire him and have nothing bad to say about him.

Dogbreath II wrote:

Joe was still a degenerate, pervert and liar.

You are clearly projecting.

You see, you said one thing that was right: legally, the dead can't be libelled. Which is what makes you safe; which in turn makes your courage equal to the task.

Dogbreath II wrote:

But I'm sure he had his good qualities too. After all, even Hitler (who was baptised into the Mormon Church at the London Temple) was sincere and a lover of dogs.

Ah, Godwin's law in operation.

And another lie on your part. Baptisms for the dead do not make the deceased into members of the Church.

Which, again, will not slow you down from repeating that canard.

Nor will you admit that the Church is not set up to censor the submission of names, which is done by the members at their own initiative.

Nor will you admit that the Church retrospectively cancelled the ordinance afterwards. Which makes the baptism moot.

But, knowing this, I predict with high confidence that you will continue to repeat that canard.

Because, as it turns out, it is you who is the degenerate, pervert and liar.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>

Nor will you admit that the Church is not set up to censor the submission of names, which is done by the members at their own initiative.
Nor will you admit that the Church retrospectively cancelled the ordinance afterwards. Which makes the baptism moot.

So you would have us believe that no Mormon in all of Mormondumb, to include the Mormon Temple in London, could recognize the name of Adolf Hitler beforehand, but after the fact, somebody saw fit to take back the ritual?

You are correct, however, in your observation that all the ripped off Masonic hocus pocus of the Mormon Temple is moot, but it was moot before any of it ever began. No counter hocus pocus was ever necessary to cancel any of it.

Dagobert II wrote:

<quoted text>
So you would have us believe that no Mormon in all of Mormondumb, to include the Mormon Temple in London, could recognize the name of Adolf Hitler beforehand, but after the fact, somebody saw fit to take back the ritual?

No.

I would have you believe that someone, for whatever reason, chose to submit the name, the work was done, and the someone else in authority saw fit to revoke the ordinance.

Wazza matter, Dagobert? Did the anti-Mormon website, from which you sourced that irrelevant factoid, fail to tell you the only relevant detail about it? Does that explain your pig-ignorance on the subject?

Isn't it funny that, instead of ripping on that site for "suppressing" or "spinning" or "whitewashing" the facts, you are blaming me for your all-comprehensive ignorance?

Shall we take that as yet another example of your complete hypocrisy?

Why yes, I think we shall.

Snip another red herring.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

The *Nauvoo city council*, with Joseph as mayor, ordered the "Expositor" press destroyed when it published a *distorted and inflammatory* account of polygamy, including an *utterly fictitious* story that was *intentionally designed* to rouse the local rabble into mob action.

Well unfortunately for the modern Mormon agenda of deception, copies of the destroyed Nauvoo Expositor still exist. Anyone may read them here: http://solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

It would seem that the most inflammatory content of the newspaper was it's exposure of the truth of copulatin' Joe's practice of polygamy that the 'sincere' copulator with children and other men's wives would have rather kept secret.

Dagobert II wrote:

<quoted text>
Well unfortunately for the modern Mormon agenda of deception, copies of the destroyed Nauvoo Expositor still exist. Anyone may read them here: http://solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm

Yes. I've read it.

Did you like the story of the English girl, Dagobert? The one who was supposedly made to prostitute herself to all the leading men in the Church in turn?

Of course you liked it; it was (1) an outright lie, and (2) aligned with your sexual fantasies.

But it was completely false, and entirely inflammatory.

There are a number of other articles which have the same general force and direction. The "Expositor" was intended to inflame the jealousies of low-life types like you, and the indignation of censorious so-called "Christians;" to the extent that both groups would be provoked to violence.

And it worked.

And you *completely* approve, don't you?

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. I've read it.
Did you like the story of the English girl, Dagobert? The one who was supposedly made to prostitute herself to all the leading men in the Church in turn?

You must have been reading with you 'spiritual' eyes rather than you physical ones, or maybe you're bearing your 'Packerist' testimony of what you want to be in the paper instead of what is really there as no such story appears in the Nauvoo Expositor.
Perhaps you refer to the article bearing this line, "It is a notorious fact, that many females in foreign climes, and in countries to us unknown, even in the most distant regions of the Eastern hemisphere, have been induced, by the sound of the gospel, to forsake friends, and embark upon a voyage across waters that lie stretched over the greater portion of the globe, as they supposed, to glorify God, that they might thereby stand acquitted in the great day of God Almighty."
If read with one's physical eyes it is obvious that this article is an accurate indictment of copulatin' Joe and his secret 'marriages' along with his practice of a despotic theocracy. There is no story of any particular English girl prostituting herself to copulatin' Joe though that would have been highly credible to anyone with a knowledge of copulatin' Joe's character.

Dogbreath II wrote:

If read with one's physical eyes it is obvious that this article is an accurate indictment of [Dogbreath's epithet] Joe and his secret 'marriages' along with his practice of a despotic theocracy. There is no story of any particular English girl prostituting herself to [Dogbreath's epithet] Joe though that would have been highly credible to anyone with a knowledge of [Dogbreath's epithet] Joe's character.

No. It would not.

It is, of course, highly credible to the ignorant bigots who, like dogbreath, delight to believe the vilest lies -- and the worse the better -- about people who are, in reality, so utterly beyond their reach.

The *fact*, Dogbreath, is that Joseph practiced plural marriage exclusively, and only, as a *religious principle*. If there is one safe fact in LDS history, it is this.

And here is another, equally safe: Joseph was a better man than you are. I go farther:*even if* he had been *exactly* what you delight to accuse him of being, he would *still* have been a better man than you are. Because the *FACT* is that you are all the things you accuse him of being, and a foul-mouthed, low-minded coward besides.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran wrote:

The *fact*, Dogbreath, is that Joseph practiced plural marriage exclusively, and only, as a *religious principle*. If there is one safe fact in LDS history, it is this.

LOL! You say that as though practicing pedophilia and adultery as a *religious principle* makes it any less disgusting.