You still aren't very interesting. But, you have managed bizarre, and unhinged. As logic, reason and fairness are not necessary in the conduct of your argument, I don't know where to go.
You have accepted that the rape charge is unfair, you haven't recognized that such a charge would never have been considered or laid at the time because such a marriage would neither be considered immoral or illegal, with the exception that in the case of Joseph Smith, he was already married. People seriously, and strenuously objected to this.
But, strangely, your position is what was considered the Liberal position at the time. But, then, some 20 years later, the Republican party was the Liberal party and the Democrats were the Conservatives. The rise of the primacy of the rights of the individual, the core value of the Liberal philosophy started in a good place to us all now, in the dignity of the individual and the basic right to self determination which is offended by the concept of life-long imposed servitude as property.
Yet, this same philosophy became extended to form the basis of the primacy of the woman's interest over the life of her unborn child that is the foundation of the "right" to abort. Something that I hope we can agree offends the basic dignity of life, yet these "rights" are but extensions of "rights" that we as 21th Century individuals find truly basic.
Oddly, though, it was not Jewish custom that led exclusively to the acceptance of the one man, one wife norm that we cherish today. In fact, this was a Roman sensibility that became increasingly more accepted in Jewish and then early Christian society. Augustine of Hippo came out and clearly defined this norm, "That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself." And by the 5th Century, Polygamy was only infrequently practiced in either the Jewish or Christian communities. The Jewish community accepted the absolute ban of this practice by Rabbi Gershom in the year 1000CE. It was this 1000+ year history that Joseph Smith assaulted, but he was by no means the first or the last, as the proponents of gay marriage are following that outrage with the greater outrage of legalizing plural marriages once again. But, understand, it is the dignity of women that is offended by plural marriage, not the explicit teachings of the Bible. But, as Augustine pointed out, both the man and the woman's dignity and respect for each other is best served by the one man, one woman formulation and this has become a basic tenant of both Judaism and most branches of Christianity.
As for Mormonism, God puts these things here for a reason, and its up to us to discover and understand this reason. Islam is here to do the role they are doing which is declared in Genesis. Perhaps the why is as you understand it, simply to teach us to say no. So, I can't and won't fault you for doing this. But, I believe your behavior is undercutting your message.
BTW, David Einhorn is one of my hero's from that time, was threatened with being tarred and feathered literally for taking an anti-slavery stance in his congregation in Philadelphia. However, Einhorn was considered a Universalist even though he was a Jewish Rabbi and his ideas animated the core of what is called Classical Reform Judiasm, which with the Quakers and Unitarians and others were the primary opposition to slavery at the time.
One can imagine what you would say about these people, but understand that you are adopting the ethics and morals they held dear. And there is a reason, it is the message is more important than the messenger.
Keep care.
The "unfair" part is dependent upon which eyes we are talking about.
Unfair to the 14 yo girl Smith married while he himself was well into his 30s? Obviously it was. (Especially since Smith indicated it would go well eternally with her family for that to happen)
Would it technically be "unfair" to label somebody a "rapist" when no law existed against it? Well only insofar as it would be to call a plantation-owning family in the 1850s "child kidnappers" because they secured and kept children against their will.
Technically -- legally (and this is where you try to emerge...the legal -- vs. the moral angle) -- it wouldn't be "child kidnapping" just like TN Nana's charge wouldn't be "child rape."
How about if a slave-owner forced sex upon a 14 yo slave he owned? "Legal?" Yup.
I can just imagine a thread like this...where TN Nana accuses some 19th century figure of "child kidnapping."
You then rush in to chastise TN Nana -- in defense of the slavery industry -- and you say to her: "I am not saying that this was good or proper..."...(But) "Make sure you know your facts before making random charges..."
So the "unfair" only has to do with the technical legal angle. What do you think the eyes of God would conclude? Fair or unfair? What do you think the eyes of such victims would conclude? Fair or unfair?
...with the exception that in the case of Joseph Smith, he was already married. People seriously, and strenuously objected to this. But, strangely, your position is what was considered the Liberal position at the time. But, then, some 20 years later, the Republican party was the Liberal party and the Democrats were the Conservatives. The rise of the primacy of the rights of the individual, the core value of the Liberal philosophy started in a good place to us all now, in the dignity of the individual and the basic right to self determination which is offended by the concept of life-long imposed servitude as property.
Well, it sounds to me as if you're defining "conservative" here as conserving the status quo -- which would have been things like slavery and polygamy. Versus defining "liberal" in its "derivative" sense, liberating.
I suppose if you're looking at it from that angle, I could agree with you.
Certainly, there's nothing wrong with coming down on the side of those held in unjust servitude. That was the position of the Republicans from the get-go:
The Republican party's initial social issues "rights" issues it took on was the "twin relics of barbarism" -- slavery and polygamy.
And it was popular with the populace! By 1898, 28 banners were delivered to Congress -- featuring 7 million signatures. Over what issue? The people didn't want Congress to seat newly elected Democrat B.H. Roberts.
What did Roberts represent?
He was elected Congressman from Utah. Roberts had taken a third simultaneous wife around 1893 -- after Utah supposedly had dumped polygamy. Then the Utah voters showed their true position on polygamy in 1898 by voting Democrat Roberts in.
Congress did the right thing in 1898. It listened to the people and dumped Roberts. Of course by the 1890s, the law was starting to catch up with what was moral. Still, Roberts was never charged with illegal cohabitation or any such law.
God is not the author of Mormonism. He doesn't place cults and world religions like Islam on the earth. Neither does He place pagan idol-worship religions on the earth.
Yes, God in His sovereignty allows them to be here...at times to flourish. But that's not the same thing as saying He's their author.
The people group behind Islam are traced back in Galatians 4 to Hagar's child.
We all know that the Hagar-Abram matter was because this couple took things into their own hands, disbelieving God that He would miraculously ensure that Sarai was impregnated. She was indeed. But not until after they disobeyed God.
Disobedience is the root of the people arising unto Islam. Including disobedience in who Abram was to sleep with.
Disobedience in matters like God's grace, one marital partner, new revelations not from God, was the origins of the Mormon people.
Oh?
Where?