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.
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.