Actually, although the status is "undetermined", if you read the text about it you'll see that they reckon it's written long after the suggested date.
Another possibility is that it was redacted in more modern colloquial style, but that the essential content of the original is the same.
Well, considering it's course material for PSY210 at a University of Washington psychology department (though page is dated about 12 years), parody wouldn't be my _first_ thought... but perhaps I lack the gift of cynicism.
clearly a joke.
Has all the hallmarks of an amusing fraud - the language would indicate it is of quite recent origin.
Dear "Young Bride": as it is 1890, I'm pretty sure I can legally beat you. Try this on me and I will.
I'd be curious to know what her husband's reaction was when he read this.
Given that he was a Reverend, probably resounding endorsement. With few exceptions, women - and yea, ones married to Protestant church authorities - didn't write things of which their husbands would disapprove in 1894. At least, certainly not tractates of this nature.
Honest question: how do you know this?
In the way that one knows most things one claims to know that are not vindicated through literal, sensory first-person experience - through some sort of inductive web of personal interactions, accumulated scholastic perceptions, second-hand anecdotes, lore, etc. I could certainly be wrong.
I read this comment and thought, this comment sounds like it was written by Alex and then I read the tagline..
Jonathan! O HAI
You've a enjoyable turn of phrase
good riddance, ruth smythers, spreader of lies and enemy of all of mankind. stay in your grave, please.