Comment on Praise Be
Cruel@programming.dev 1 week agoI believe they were already married for many years before that. The threat of destruction was if she didn’t stay loyal to him in their marriage. She’s specially mentioned because she was consistently against polygamy, so this is more accurately described as intimidation to stay married. It’s a stretch to say it supports rape, no more than marriage itself is a social/legal pressure for those married to have sex with each other.
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
They were not, and that’s not what it says, but you’re welcome to twist it however you like to believe differently - same as people do with the Bible.
If someone came up to your mom/sister/daughter and said “There’s a hidden sniper with his rifle trained on you right now. Marry me and stay loyal, or else he’ll shoot you” then you wouldn’t consider that to be rape? I most certainly would. Whenever you threaten someone with violence for refusing a sexual relationship, that is rape.
Cruel@programming.dev 1 week ago
Section 132 was recorded in 1843 and they were married in 1827. This is not a matter of interpretation. You’re just flat wrong.
By your logic, all sex in Christian marriages is rape. After all, they’re all taught the threats God made against fornicators, thus they’ve been groomed under duress into marriage.
You can go with that logic, and it’s not necessarily wrong. It just muddies what rape is into something meaningless.
Epp4@lemmynsfw.com 1 week ago
You’re wrong, actually. Joseph and Emma Smith were married in 1844. You’re probably thinking of when he took her as a concubine.
No, all sex in Christianity doesn’t have God telling women who specifically they must marry and “cleave unto” (spread their legs) - only Mormons have such a vile religion.
Stop spreading misinformation. It’s very clear Mormons worship rapists - they supported the current rapist in the White House at a higher proportion than any other denomination. It’s just who they are.