Slog
News & ArtsSunday, October 7, 2012
Religion Slog Mormon Study: Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-63
Posted by Goldy on Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 7:00 AM
[Slog Bible Study is on hiatus through the November election as we honor Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney by studying the scriptures of his Mormon religion.]
Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-63
If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed;
Discuss.
1
Not surprisingly, this doesn't explain Smith and Co's later interpretation that plural marriage for them meant the ability to forcibly break up the marriages of their followers and take the newly-single wives for themselves.
2
Since there is only one Mitt, and more than 1000 Jewish journalists covering the election, can we start studying the Kabbalah?
3
Joe started the religion to justify his serial grifting & philandering, so it's only natural that he'd want to own his sexual conquests as property.
4
There is lots of important stuff here....
Mormons believe(d) in Polygamy!
we never suspected.....
And Mormon 'scripture' mimics Jewish scripture?
so, that must mean Mitt is as big an asshole as Goldy?
ick.....
And because the gross stuff in Mormon 'scripture' is newer than the gross stuff in the Jewish/Xtian canon Mormons are less credible(?)
Because believing really old fables is OK but believing less old fables is silly.
OK....
Remember, Hipsters-
Obama prays.
EVERYDAY!
Mormons believe(d) in Polygamy!
we never suspected.....
And Mormon 'scripture' mimics Jewish scripture?
so, that must mean Mitt is as big an asshole as Goldy?
ick.....
And because the gross stuff in Mormon 'scripture' is newer than the gross stuff in the Jewish/Xtian canon Mormons are less credible(?)
Because believing really old fables is OK but believing less old fables is silly.
OK....
Remember, Hipsters-
Obama prays.
EVERYDAY!
8
And NEVER FORGET, girls-
Romney's grandpa was a Polygamist in Mexico!
Which is so much worse that Obama's bigamist dad in Kenya.....
Romney's grandpa was a Polygamist in Mexico!
Which is so much worse that Obama's bigamist dad in Kenya.....
11
I'd be OK with it if it could be denounced as "Yeah, but this is old and we don't do that anymore" in the same way as all that Leviticus nonsense. But this wasn't invented by a tribe of Bronze Age camel herders, this was invented by a modern American. So therefore it totally sucks.
12
@11: Ancient Israelites didn't really herd camels, since they're not kosher. The main livestock was probably goats.
13
@12 vitally important difference. Thanks for clarifying. I will refer to them as "a tribe of Bronze Age goat herders"
from now on. Glad we got that sorted out.
from now on. Glad we got that sorted out.
15
I know, I know, the Book of Mormon was written way after the 'doth' and '-eth' shit. It just doesn't sound old-timey without it.
Oooh, unles you replace all the s's with f's.
"If the man realizef it waf actually kinda weird, though, he can fay it waf adultery after all, and fhe fhall be deftroyed, becaufe what good if fhe after fomething like that? Every time he wanted to get bufy with her, he wouldn't be able to ftop thinking about that one time. Fhe'd be ufeleff at that point."
Oooh, unles you replace all the s's with f's.
"If the man realizef it waf actually kinda weird, though, he can fay it waf adultery after all, and fhe fhall be deftroyed, becaufe what good if fhe after fomething like that? Every time he wanted to get bufy with her, he wouldn't be able to ftop thinking about that one time. Fhe'd be ufeleff at that point."
16
What @3 said. It's not enough to own the most wealth and political power. There should also be a competition to own, and have exclusive sexual access to, the most women. Mormonism has some of the most utterly disgusting doctrines.
Except that the Mormon church disavowed polygamy many decades ago. Why is this still in their Doctrines and Covenants? It's worth noting that Mormons endured plenty of loud, violent persecution early on, according to John Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, and this was one of the practices that was most criticized.
Except that the Mormon church disavowed polygamy many decades ago. Why is this still in their Doctrines and Covenants? It's worth noting that Mormons endured plenty of loud, violent persecution early on, according to John Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, and this was one of the practices that was most criticized.
17
"Lets set up a cult where the alpha males have harems. We'll make sure none of our girls run away by killing them if they go off with other guys."
18
@2 I have spent plenty of Sundays in this space quoting the Hebrew scripture (which by the way, is part of the Mormon scripture). Perfectly fair and balanced.
20
Traditional marriage allows for men to claim possession of women; "they belong to him" just like his car belongs to him and so does the house. Reminds me of Soylent Green where the actress eating the strawberry jam was called "furniture". I bet the Mormons like that.
21
@13: Now, now, no need to get snippy at VL for the correction. One should strive for accuracy in one's invective after all.
22
Have as many babies as you possibly can as quickly as you can and we can take over a state. And maybe even one day the entire country.
23
Religious and political myths bring short-term and immediate power to the leading proponents of those myths. The immediate and individual interests of these leaders frequently conflict with the long-term interests of the group. In this case, the philosophy of breeding uncontrollably creates an army of future followers. Whether the carrying capacity of the environment is enough to support such over-breeding is not a concern, as environmental collapse will not occur until long after the death of the current LDS leadership.
24
I prefer the levitical "put to death" over the mormon "shall be destroyed." I mean, lots of Abrahamic religions make female adulterers die, but I'd much rather be put to death than destroyed, FWIW.
27
Interesting stuff. One nitpick, though. The snippet you quoted could imply that true believers should take it onto themselves to "destroy" these wayward virgins (or former virgins, now espoused to their hubbies). The scripture suggests otherwise:
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
So, the key thing here is that it is God that will destroy her (important to know in case some crazed LDS member starts thinking of stoning female adulterers).
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
So, the key thing here is that it is God that will destroy her (important to know in case some crazed LDS member starts thinking of stoning female adulterers).
28
What is interesting about this and what makes it different from the old testament tradition, is the idea that women were capable of committing adultery.
In the old testament adultery was the crime of having sex with another man's wife. Not a wife having sex with a man other than her husband or a married man having sex with an unmarried woman.
In the original tradition, the wife who had sex with another man was seen as blameless, as blameless as a field that was plowed by a neighbor.
In the old testament adultery was the crime of having sex with another man's wife. Not a wife having sex with a man other than her husband or a married man having sex with an unmarried woman.
In the original tradition, the wife who had sex with another man was seen as blameless, as blameless as a field that was plowed by a neighbor.
30
@25 You moron. I'm talking about polygamy, not Leviticus. There's no polygamy in Leviticus, which you obviously haven't read. Aside from one specific example that I can think of - Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar - there's no law or code in the Bible that sanctions polygamy. The Mormon church has officially denounced polygamy and yet, based on today's quote, it's still officially part of their sacred writings. What the hell? When you can find something officially denounced by the Christian church that's still permited in writing in the Bible, then we'll talk.
31
@30, I won't call you a moron, but Leviticus (which obviously you haven't read very well) isn't Christian. It predates Christianity by about 1,500 years.
33
I won't call you a moron either, but Leviticus, which I had to slog through during my Christian years, is part of the Christian Bible. Even though it predates the religion, Christians very, very much consider it part of the infallible word of God, as authoritative as Luke or Romans or Thessalonians. Even if Christians don't necessarily live by its myriad of ritual laws (or even bother to read them, really, and I don't blame them), Leviticus, as well as the rest of the pre-Christian writings the Christians collectively refer to as the Old Testament, is held in equal esteem as the Christian-era writings of the New Testament. Pastors preach from those old Jewish writings as much as they do from the writings created by Christians.
Therefore I'm on fully solid ground when I refer to Leviticus as part of the Christian scriptures. And unlike what the moron @25 appears to suggest, there's nothing in Leviticus delineating the rules of justified polygamy. There is nothing in the entire Bible, old or new, that sanctions polygamy. As far as I know, Joseph Smith made it up for the (male) purposes of his little religion.
Therefore I'm on fully solid ground when I refer to Leviticus as part of the Christian scriptures. And unlike what the moron @25 appears to suggest, there's nothing in Leviticus delineating the rules of justified polygamy. There is nothing in the entire Bible, old or new, that sanctions polygamy. As far as I know, Joseph Smith made it up for the (male) purposes of his little religion.
34
@32 That's right! I forgot about them. I just vaguely remembered that Abraham had two wives, so I looked that one up.
I will state the point that these Genesis stories neither condemn nor support polygamy, although they indicate that the practice was accepted during their time. The Doctrines and Covenant quote sets up a basic guideline for polygamy. There's nothing in the Bible that does that. I'm not picking favorites based on this, but I'm just pointing it out.
I will state the point that these Genesis stories neither condemn nor support polygamy, although they indicate that the practice was accepted during their time. The Doctrines and Covenant quote sets up a basic guideline for polygamy. There's nothing in the Bible that does that. I'm not picking favorites based on this, but I'm just pointing it out.
35
Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Do Xtians (or Jews) put homosexuals to death?
Have they renounced Leviticus?
Many of the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives, including Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada.
Some interpretations also suggest Moses had a second wife in Tharbis.
Other polygamists identified in the Bible include Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, Eliphaz, Ezra, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Nahor, Shaharaim, Simeon, and Zedekiah.
The Pentateuch also lists guidelines and rules concerning the taking of multiple wives; noting that "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights, [Ex 21:10]
The prophet Nathan speaking for God confronting David with the murder of Uriah the Hittite said that he (God) would have given David more wives if he had wanted them.[2Samuel 12:8]
There are no verses in the law or Old Testament that forbid polygamy.
The church father Justin Martyr mentions that in his time Jewish men were permitted to have four or five wives, and Babatha was a Jewish woman who was a second wife.
Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time of the early church:
When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even when though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom.
More...
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Do Xtians (or Jews) put homosexuals to death?
Have they renounced Leviticus?
Many of the Old Testament Prophets and Patriarchs had multiple wives, including Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Saul, David, Solomon, Rehoboam, Elkanah, Ashur, Abijah and Jehoiada.
Some interpretations also suggest Moses had a second wife in Tharbis.
Other polygamists identified in the Bible include Ahab, Ahasuerus, Ashur, Belshazzar, Benhadad, Caleb, Eliphaz, Ezra, Jehoiachin, Jehoram, Jerahmeel, Joash, Machir, Manasseh, Mered, Nahor, Shaharaim, Simeon, and Zedekiah.
The Pentateuch also lists guidelines and rules concerning the taking of multiple wives; noting that "If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights, [Ex 21:10]
The prophet Nathan speaking for God confronting David with the murder of Uriah the Hittite said that he (God) would have given David more wives if he had wanted them.[2Samuel 12:8]
There are no verses in the law or Old Testament that forbid polygamy.
The church father Justin Martyr mentions that in his time Jewish men were permitted to have four or five wives, and Babatha was a Jewish woman who was a second wife.
Jewish polygamy clashed with Roman monogamy at the time of the early church:
When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even when though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom.
36
@31- Actually, Leviticus dates from the period from about 700-500 BC, being a product of the series of religious reforms that created the monotheistic Judaism whose scriptures were finalized by Ezra after the Babylonian Exile. The 1,500 year figure is based on the Bible's own chronology, which is mythological; no part of the Bible was written down before 1000 BC at the earliest.
37
One could make the argument that if the women are willing, there's no problem (like modern day polyamorous couples), but only if they devote no real thought to the issue. These women grow up being treated like chattel their entire lives. They are brainwashed from birth to accept whatever men decide for them, without question.
38
@37, on the "chattel" point, when my wife and I were married not too long ago, we decided to both pick a new last name for ourselves. This transition cost me close to $500, including court fees and placing a notice in the local paper. Once that was done? $15 for her to change her name to mine. We quickly realized that even today, men might have outstanding debts, but women can't possibly own property or have debts of their own. And this was in California, in the last ten years. Chattel, indeed.
39
Ha, ha, troll @35! Cute name. Listen up:
As far as capital punishment against homosexuality goes, it's not parallel to the issue of polygamy and the Mormon religion because there are no prominent Christian leaders who have officially condemned this barbarous act. If you ask said Christian leaders about this, or any of the other "bullshit" (as Dan Savage described it) in the Bible, they will twist themselves into justifying its presence.
In contrast, the Mormon Church has officially and strenuously denounced polygamy. Indeed, a good way to foul the waters of a Mormon social event is to start needling them about polygamy. In fact, this break from former practice was a big enough deal that a whole section of followers split up from the main church in good part because of the rejection of polygamy. I'm referring, of course, to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (Warren Jeffs, et al). And yet, I repeat, the Doctrine and Covenants, as quoted today, suggests that the practice of polygamy is still officially sanctioned and regulated by the Mormons' own sacred scriptures.
As far as Exodus 21:10 - your lone example of polygamy laws and regulations in the Bible - put it in context. All I know how to do is copy-and-paste:
-- 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. --
The issue here is the selling or seizing of humans to fulfill debt obligations. The wife referred to here is not the same as the "main" wife or "woman of the house." Rather, she's a concubine, a servant, bought or seized from someone else. The Doctrines and Covenant quote, with its talk of virgins and adultery, suggests a harem more than the Exodus passage.
Did Old Testament figures have multiple wives? Yes. The 2 Samuel passage you cite indicates that that was the case for King David. But so what? I had just cited you the example of Abraham/Sarah/Hagar and venomlash brought up Jacob/Rachel/Leah. All these examples simply support the conclusion that ancient Jewish society was highly patriarchal, not a fun time and place to be a woman. I could have told you that. But still, you've yet to cite a single example anywhere in the Bible where the rules of polygamy are laid out, as they appear to be in the Doctrines and Covenant quote, other than the wife/concubine/servant situation described in Exodus 21.
Although who knows. Maybe *all* ancient Jewish women ended up as wives/concubines/servants. But Exodus 21, to me, suggests that there's a key difference between the "first" wife and the new addition. In Doctrines and Covenant, it sounds like they're all the same.
On to the early Christian era.
I don't know anywhere near enough about the figures of antiquity to challenge your examples. If, indeed, it was not unheard of among early Common Era Jewish men to have multiple wives, it wouldn't surprise me for two reasons:
1.) The Jewish tradition, as represented by the Old Testament, was extremely patriarchal, as I mentioned (no wonder there are no laws explicitly forbidding polygamy), and
2.) Women had very few rights, if any, during classical times, going back at least to ancient Athens, if not earlier. What's more, I doubt your assertion that Romans were that monogamous, at least before about 100 C.E.,but I'll let that slide since it's besides the point.
As Rodney Stark describes in The Rise of Christianity, his brief and highly recommended sociological study of the first few centuries of Christianity, women were treated pretty damn well by the Christians. Abortion - an extremely dangerous and painful procedure at times forced on the woman - was forbidden from the get-go, as was divorce and infidelity - and polygamy. Women, indeed, were principal converts and very early leaders in the nascent Church. Yes, there's nothing in the New Testament that forbids polygamy. However, Paul spends very little time, if any, on what we would call the "social issues", and the Jesus of the Gospels is a quite a bit theoretical. There isn't a New Testament counterpart to the Pentateuch, in other words. (1 Timothy - not written by Paul - is the closest it gets, if I remember.)
Stark cites Pagans and Christians, by Robin Lane Fox, and "Ancient Behavior in Ancient Societies", by A. T. Sandison, if you want to look it up. I have no idea who these people are.
So, bottom line, polygamy was forbidden by the early Christian Church, even if many of the early Christian converts were Jewish.
Fool, indeed! Back to you!
More...
As far as capital punishment against homosexuality goes, it's not parallel to the issue of polygamy and the Mormon religion because there are no prominent Christian leaders who have officially condemned this barbarous act. If you ask said Christian leaders about this, or any of the other "bullshit" (as Dan Savage described it) in the Bible, they will twist themselves into justifying its presence.
In contrast, the Mormon Church has officially and strenuously denounced polygamy. Indeed, a good way to foul the waters of a Mormon social event is to start needling them about polygamy. In fact, this break from former practice was a big enough deal that a whole section of followers split up from the main church in good part because of the rejection of polygamy. I'm referring, of course, to the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (Warren Jeffs, et al). And yet, I repeat, the Doctrine and Covenants, as quoted today, suggests that the practice of polygamy is still officially sanctioned and regulated by the Mormons' own sacred scriptures.
As far as Exodus 21:10 - your lone example of polygamy laws and regulations in the Bible - put it in context. All I know how to do is copy-and-paste:
-- 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.
10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. --
The issue here is the selling or seizing of humans to fulfill debt obligations. The wife referred to here is not the same as the "main" wife or "woman of the house." Rather, she's a concubine, a servant, bought or seized from someone else. The Doctrines and Covenant quote, with its talk of virgins and adultery, suggests a harem more than the Exodus passage.
Did Old Testament figures have multiple wives? Yes. The 2 Samuel passage you cite indicates that that was the case for King David. But so what? I had just cited you the example of Abraham/Sarah/Hagar and venomlash brought up Jacob/Rachel/Leah. All these examples simply support the conclusion that ancient Jewish society was highly patriarchal, not a fun time and place to be a woman. I could have told you that. But still, you've yet to cite a single example anywhere in the Bible where the rules of polygamy are laid out, as they appear to be in the Doctrines and Covenant quote, other than the wife/concubine/servant situation described in Exodus 21.
Although who knows. Maybe *all* ancient Jewish women ended up as wives/concubines/servants. But Exodus 21, to me, suggests that there's a key difference between the "first" wife and the new addition. In Doctrines and Covenant, it sounds like they're all the same.
On to the early Christian era.
I don't know anywhere near enough about the figures of antiquity to challenge your examples. If, indeed, it was not unheard of among early Common Era Jewish men to have multiple wives, it wouldn't surprise me for two reasons:
1.) The Jewish tradition, as represented by the Old Testament, was extremely patriarchal, as I mentioned (no wonder there are no laws explicitly forbidding polygamy), and
2.) Women had very few rights, if any, during classical times, going back at least to ancient Athens, if not earlier. What's more, I doubt your assertion that Romans were that monogamous, at least before about 100 C.E.,but I'll let that slide since it's besides the point.
As Rodney Stark describes in The Rise of Christianity, his brief and highly recommended sociological study of the first few centuries of Christianity, women were treated pretty damn well by the Christians. Abortion - an extremely dangerous and painful procedure at times forced on the woman - was forbidden from the get-go, as was divorce and infidelity - and polygamy. Women, indeed, were principal converts and very early leaders in the nascent Church. Yes, there's nothing in the New Testament that forbids polygamy. However, Paul spends very little time, if any, on what we would call the "social issues", and the Jesus of the Gospels is a quite a bit theoretical. There isn't a New Testament counterpart to the Pentateuch, in other words. (1 Timothy - not written by Paul - is the closest it gets, if I remember.)
Stark cites Pagans and Christians, by Robin Lane Fox, and "Ancient Behavior in Ancient Societies", by A. T. Sandison, if you want to look it up. I have no idea who these people are.
So, bottom line, polygamy was forbidden by the early Christian Church, even if many of the early Christian converts were Jewish.
Fool, indeed! Back to you!
40
@33, the Jewish Torah and other writings are not the "Old Testament"; they are the Tanakh. Christian fathers appended some of them -- after strategic editing to make them seem to be predictive of Jesus -- to the New Testament. What you heard preached by your pastors is not exactly what was original. Borrowing something from someone else and tweaking it does not make it yours. Show some respect.
41
@40 It's not my deal what our ancestors have done with literature, culture, history, etc. I'm sorry if calling Leviticus part of the Christian Bible offends you, but I'd wager that the "Christian Leviticus" is the version of Leviticus the moron - pardon me, the troll - was referring to, since he was trying to start an argument about about Mormon polygamy and Christian homophobia, or something like that. Therefore, that's the Leviticus I address.
42
39
So.....
You are offended because Mormons condemn polygamy.
But you are not offended that Xtians and Jews do not condemn capital punishment for homosexuals. Or Biblical polygamy.
OK.....
So.....
You are offended because Mormons condemn polygamy.
But you are not offended that Xtians and Jews do not condemn capital punishment for homosexuals. Or Biblical polygamy.
OK.....
43
@33 Do you mean Christian as in Protestants (like most Americans), or Christian as in Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Chaldeans and others all combined ?
Because modern European Catholics do NOT consider Leviticus to be anything binding. And never read it, nor quote it in mass, as far as I know.
Because modern European Catholics do NOT consider Leviticus to be anything binding. And never read it, nor quote it in mass, as far as I know.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS