Yes. I can absolutely be spun that way, as I said. As most anything in the Bible can be. Let me ask this then. Could she have said no? And when would that have happened?
I guess it’s consent. The master/deity or their aide comes to the servant and tells them of master’s will, the great plan. The servant says, yeah, okay.
Yet another fail in writing. Why not make it so God and Gabriel give her the choice, and she adamantly agrees? Remove all doubt from the story’s plot. Or better yet, add some drama, have Mary unsure, and Gabriel explains the importance (not that it’s already planned, but why her choice is key to the direction of salvation and all that). And she with some thought decides to do it.
Oh, right… that would give a woman some agency. Never mind.
That was AFTER impregnation, though, and under duress from supernatural beings. I don’t think that’s the correct order of operations for valid consent…
Mormons took that and really ran with it, as their a “Doctrine & Covenants” are much more blatant in support of rape. Joseph Smith told Emma Hale that God would destroy her for refusing to marry him.
I 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.
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.
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.
How old do you think the Virgin Mary was?
Removed by mod
There wasn’t consent though. It can be spun that way, but biblically Mary was destined to carry, and screw any free will.
Removed by mod
Yes. I can absolutely be spun that way, as I said. As most anything in the Bible can be. Let me ask this then. Could she have said no? And when would that have happened?
Are we really debating the sky wizard role playing game book?
No, just debating which set of rules we’re playing by.
Removed by mod
I guess it’s consent. The master/deity or their aide comes to the servant and tells them of master’s will, the great plan. The servant says, yeah, okay.
Yet another fail in writing. Why not make it so God and Gabriel give her the choice, and she adamantly agrees? Remove all doubt from the story’s plot. Or better yet, add some drama, have Mary unsure, and Gabriel explains the importance (not that it’s already planned, but why her choice is key to the direction of salvation and all that). And she with some thought decides to do it.
Oh, right… that would give a woman some agency. Never mind.
That was AFTER impregnation, though, and under duress from supernatural beings. I don’t think that’s the correct order of operations for valid consent…
Removed by mod
Mormons took that and really ran with it, as their a “Doctrine & Covenants” are much more blatant in support of rape. Joseph Smith told Emma Hale that God would destroy her for refusing to marry him.
How do they support rape? Or do you consider it rape of I tell I woman she’ll go to hell if she doesn’t consent?
Because in D&C 132:54, Emma is threatened with destruction if she refuses. That’s called rape by duress.
I 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.
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.
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.
Could have been as young as 13, as Virgin generally meant not ready for sex yet.
Removed by mod
however it is a misconception that people married and had kids young in the past. generally it was in your early 20s even in antiquity
She was pubescent, and thus irrelevant to pedophilia.