Meadowchik Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Because that is a Red Herring. We discussing age of consent not polygamy. Age is not the only prerequisite for consent. Rape can occur at all ages, and with various kinds of pressure. Be it a gun to the head, brute physical force, emotional pressure, or psychological manipulation, improper use of power that eliminates sincere consent is rape. 1 Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Because that is a Red Herring. We discussing age of consent not polygamy. OK, I'm all in. I will express my opinion despite that I've never married a 14 year old, I've never had sex with a 14 year old, and have never had fanatasies about any sexual activity with a fourteen year old. Does that disqualify me? I have 2 daughters that a time in their lives were fourteen years old. I have a step daughter who has been fourteen. I have 6 granddaughters who have been or will be fourteen. I think that qualifies to at least have an opinion. In no way would I find it appropriate for any of the small children I have had responisbility for, to enter into marriage at the age of fourteen. It would not be appropriate regardless the age of their proposed partner, whether that be 14, 40, or 70 years of age. If I was approached by someone, asking for the child in my charge to marry them, regardless of the males age, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 26, 30, 36, 38, 45, or 64, my answer would be the same. To anyone 15 or younger, "Get out of my house." To anyone 16 or older, "I need your vital statistics because I am now calling the police." And would expect the police to begin investigations into statutory rape. Is that "presentism"? It probably is. But I defy anyone to give any valid reasoning into how a present living being can avoid being "presentist". Do I have an opinion about parents giving consent to their 14 year old getting married? You bet I do. Such parents should be jailed for failing in the proper care and parenting of their child. If the parents have in any way previous knowledge or may have even given consent to their 14 year old to engage in sexual activities, they should be investigated by social services regarding their fitness as parents. Oops, still being presentist. 4 Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said: How can Joseph be believed if he did not obey the rules governing polygamy in D&C 132, breakung them outright on multiple occasions? You do not know that he did because you do not know when Joseph was given the full revelation versus the initial commandment and you do not know when Emma was first told about plural marriage. It is apparent that Emma knew about the practice before the revelation was dictated. Emma is on record as saying that Joseph never practiced polygamy, so we cannot ascertain from her any of the answers. Joseph left but little personal notes about the practice. If anyone makes a judgment, it is without having all of the facts. That will not stop people from making those judgments and we apparently have some time before we will know all of the facts. People will believe what they wish but God is the judge of us all, fortunately. Glenn Link to comment
carbon dioxide Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: OK, I'm all in. I will express my opinion despite that I've never married a 14 year old, I've never had sex with a 14 year old, and have never had fanatasies about any sexual activity with a fourteen year old. Does that disqualify me? Do I have an opinion about parents giving consent to their 14 year old getting married? You bet I do. Such parents should be jailed for failing in the proper care and parenting of their child. If the parents have in any way previous knowledge or may have even given consent to their 14 year old to engage in sexual activities, they should be investigated by social services regarding their fitness as parents. Oops, still being presentist. Since there is no evidence that Joseph had sex with any 14 year old, what does it matter? Lets not confuse marriage or sealing with sex. One can marry and never have sex and one can have sex and never marry. One does not have to go with the other. Edited April 18, 2017 by carbon dioxide Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 9 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: OK, I'm all in. I will express my opinion despite that I've never married a 14 year old, I've never had sex with a 14 year old, and have never had fanatasies about any sexual activity with a fourteen year old. Does that disqualify me? I have 2 daughters that a time in their lives were fourteen years old. I have a step daughter who has been fourteen. I have 6 granddaughters who have been or will be fourteen. I think that qualifies to at least have an opinion. In no way would I find it appropriate for any of the small children I have had responisbility for, to enter into marriage at the age of fourteen. It would not be appropriate regardless the age of their proposed partner, whether that be 14, 40, or 70 years of age. If I was approached by someone, asking for the child in my charge to marry them, regardless of the males age, 14, 15, 16, 20, 22, 26, 30, 36, 38, 45, or 64, my answer would be the same. To anyone 15 or younger, "Get out of my house." To anyone 16 or older, "I need your vital statistics because I am now calling the police." And would expect the police to begin investigations into statutory rape. Is that "presentism"? It probably is. But I defy anyone to give any valid reasoning into how a present living being can avoid being "presentist". Do I have an opinion about parents giving consent to their 14 year old getting married? You bet I do. Such parents should be jailed for failing in the proper care and parenting of their child. If the parents have in any way previous knowledge or may have even given consent to their 14 year old to engage in sexual activities, they should be investigated by social services regarding their fitness as parents. Oops, still being presentist. Your last statement is correct. As I noted earlier, I know two women who were married in their early teens and raised families very well, with the help of their husbands. I also know a lot of women who have had children out of wedlock while in their early teens. Very few of them have done a good job of raising their children. This is a far worse situation than a person being sealed to a fourteen year old girl with whom he does not have conjugal relations. Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Since there is no evidence that Joseph had sex with any 14 year old, what does it matter? Lets not confuse marriage or sealing with sex. One can marry and never have sex and one can have sex and never marry. One does not have to go with the other. One can marry and never have sex---One can have sex and never marry. I fail to see how those two statements have anything to do with the topic at hand. Evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with any 14 year old??? Do you mean, "ratum sed non consummatum"? Just what kind of evidence is there of anyone having sex with another person unless there are witnesses (yuch) or a resulting pregnancy. I don't know about you, but my marriages vows did not include that I had to provide evidence that my wife and I had "consummated" our marriage. And god commanded him to marry her because..........? 2 Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: Age is not the only prerequisite for consent. Rape can occur at all ages, and with various kinds of pressure. Be it a gun to the head, brute physical force, emotional pressure, or psychological manipulation, improper use of power that eliminates sincere consent is rape. Again you are making a judgement that those women were somehow unable to reason the matter out in their own minds, pray about the matter, and come to a conclusion which differs from yours and be correct about it. There are several women who refused Joseph's proposal and that was it. There were some who at first refused but later were sealed to Joseph, such as Mary Lightener. Mary said that she had received a witness from an angel. Vilate Kimball received received a revelation about plural marriage before the subject was ever brought to her attention by man. Lucy walker her questions answered in the affirmative. Whatever the situation, it is between them and God. Those who agreed and those who refused. Link to comment
Glenn101 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said: And god commanded him to marry her because..........? Actually I think that this was one where it was the father's idea. A desire to have his family and Joseph's family linked in eternity. Link to comment
Popular Post Meadowchik Posted April 18, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted April 18, 2017 32 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: You do not know that he did because you do not know when Joseph was given the full revelation versus the initial commandment and you do not know when Emma was first told about plural marriage. It is apparent that Emma knew about the practice before the revelation was dictated. Emma is on record as saying that Joseph never practiced polygamy, so we cannot ascertain from her any of the answers. Joseph left but little personal notes about the practice. If anyone makes a judgment, it is without having all of the facts. That will not stop people from making those judgments and we apparently have some time before we will know all of the facts. People will believe what they wish but God is the judge of us all, fortunately. Glenn We absolutely know he broke the rules. He married women who were not virgins and women who were promised to other men. We also know that he lied about it including lying to the general church body. 6 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Again you are making a judgement that those women were somehow unable to reason the matter out in their own minds, pray about the matter, and come to a conclusion which differs from yours and be correct about it. There are several women who refused Joseph's proposal and that was it. There were some who at first refused but later were sealed to Joseph, such as Mary Lightener. Mary said that she had received a witness from an angel. Vilate Kimball received received a revelation about plural marriage before the subject was ever brought to her attention by man. Lucy walker her questions answered in the affirmative. Whatever the situation, it is between them and God. Those who agreed and those who refused. If a woman or girl marries because of abusive priesthood authority, even if others refuse, it does not make the abuse okay. 3 Link to comment
bcuzbcuz Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 20 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Your last statement is correct. As I noted earlier, I know two women who were married in their early teens and raised families very well, with the help of their husbands. I also know a lot of women who have had children out of wedlock while in their early teens. Very few of them have done a good job of raising their children. This is a far worse situation than a person being sealed to a fourteen year old girl with whom he does not have conjugal relations. I don't really understand the why or how of the conclusion by yourself and others here that "sealed but not consummated" somehow applies to Joseph and his wedding a 14 year old. I can understand that people don't "want" it to be true that Joseph had sex with a 14 year old. I can understand making up excuses as to why Joseph would not have had sex with a 14 year old. But there is no "evidence" that he didn't, equally as true that no "evidence" to show that he did. But Joseph already had a whole gaggle of wives at the time , who Emma did not know about or approve of. And he continued gathering wives right up to the time of his death. WHY? If not to "consummate"? Link to comment
stemelbow Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 52 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: Your last statement is correct. As I noted earlier, I know two women who were married in their early teens and raised families very well, with the help of their husbands. I also know a lot of women who have had children out of wedlock while in their early teens. Very few of them have done a good job of raising their children. This is a far worse situation than a person being sealed to a fourteen year old girl with whom he does not have conjugal relations. THat's a pretty subjective determination. I say let God decide that. It very well could be that Joseph marrying Helen did more damage in the world than a young mother who struggled in raising her kid. 1 Link to comment
JulieM Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, stemelbow said: THat's a pretty subjective determination. I say let God decide that. It very well could be that Joseph marrying Helen did more damage in the world than a young mother who struggled in raising her kid. It's still causing damage and resulting in members leaving when they learn about it and investigators to be repulsed if they learn about him marrying a 14 year old (and other men's wives). Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM 4 Link to comment
JulieM Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Because that is a Red Herring. We discussing age of consent not polygamy. Then you should post this in the news section of the board if it has nothing to do with "LDS Doctrine, History," etc. Why did you post it here if not to discuss Joseph's marrages to young teens? What does that news article have to do with LDS doctrine or history that you want to discuss? Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Since there is no evidence that Joseph had sex with any 14 year old, what does it matter? Lets not confuse marriage or sealing with sex. One can marry and never have sex and one can have sex and never marry. One does not have to go with the other. Well there goes the whole assertion that marriage is for procreation. I have certainly heard people state that gay marriage is an abomination because they can not possibly produce offspring. Evidently, according to your thinking, Joseph Smith didn't think marriage had anything to do with whether a couple had children. Marriage is more about who can collect the most wives. And who can talk the youngest girls into marrying them. The rules seem to be simple. You can promise them ANYTHING including eternal salvation for them and their family to get kids to marry you. Anything else we need to know about this game? 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Your Presentism is showing. It doesn't really have anything to do with that. I understand people in the 19th century didn't have the same concerns or understanding about age of consent that we do today. But it's important that all of us who now know better acknowledge that this sort of behavior is not moral. Consent matters. Morality matters. Edited April 18, 2017 by Gray 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Does the scripture even define what an underage kid would be? Nope. I don't think there would be any explicit ban in the scriptures even from marrying a 5 year old, but we all have the light of Christ and understand that that would be grossly immoral. That's the problem with using the scriptures as a rule book to define the limits of specific behavior. We need to use the scriptures as a basis for being able to discern immoral from moral behavior, even when the topic isn't explicitly dealt with. Broadly applicable principles, not just a list of dos and donts. Edited April 18, 2017 by Gray 2 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 13 minutes ago, california boy said: Well there goes the whole assertion that marriage is for procreation. I have certainly heard people state that gay marriage is an abomination because they can not possibly produce offspring. Evidently, according to your thinking, Joseph Smith didn't think marriage had anything to do with whether a couple had children. Marriage is more about who can collect the most wives. And who can talk the youngest girls into marrying them. The rules seem to be simple. You can promise them ANYTHING including eternal salvation for them and their family to get kids to marry you. Anything else we need to know about this game? Haha! If Helen was just to be sealed to Joseph, why would it need to be called marriage? If it was just a beautiful spiritual ordinance, nothing consummated, why would her mother call it a "thorny" and difficult path? 2 Link to comment
Gray Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Glenn101 said: Again you are making a judgement that those women were somehow unable to reason the matter out in their own minds, pray about the matter, and come to a conclusion which differs from yours and be correct about it. There are several women who refused Joseph's proposal and that was it. There were some who at first refused but later were sealed to Joseph, such as Mary Lightener. Mary said that she had received a witness from an angel. Vilate Kimball received received a revelation about plural marriage before the subject was ever brought to her attention by man. Lucy walker her questions answered in the affirmative. Whatever the situation, it is between them and God. Those who agreed and those who refused. Young teenagers don't have the same ability to reason as adults. Particularly difficult when there is pressure from a religious and political leader saying her family's salvation depends on the marriage. 4 Link to comment
Meadowchik Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Young teenagers don't have the same ability to reason as adults. Particularly difficult when there is pressure from a religious and political leader saying her family's salvation depends on the marriage. Exactly, when presented with uncertainty versus a gaurantee of salvation for you and your family, what real choice to you have? There is no real consent, there is only obedience. 3 Link to comment
JulieM Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: If Helen was just to be sealed to Joseph, why would it need to be called marriage? If it was just a beautiful spiritual ordinance, nothing consummated, why would her mother call it a "thorny" and difficult path? Also, we have no evidence or record that shows that any of Joseph's marriages were "eternity only sealings". That came from Brian Hales when he helped write the essay. Those existed at one time, but we don't know that any of Joseph's sealings were for eternity only. Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM 2 Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 8 hours ago, Meadowchik said: D&C 121 delineates the role of priesthood power. Telling a woman that the prophet must marry her or he'll be destroyed is clearly a violation of priesthood power and authority. Even if spoken in persuasive tones, it is abusive. No, it's not. No more than Christ telling us we must accept him as our Lord or be destroyed. Or President Monson telling us we must keep the commandments or be destroyed. Or God telling the children of Israel to obey him or be destroyed. Warning people of the consequence of a choice is not abuse of power. Scripture and prophetic discourse is absolutely FULL of warnings to do something or be destroyed/sent to hell. So the difference was in the requirement and law, not in the threat of negative consequences. If I tell my children they have to obey me or they will be grounded/spanked I am not abusing my power. The line between unrighteous dominion and natural consequence is very thin, and probably directly relating to the source of the law to be obeyed. Link to comment
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Since there is no evidence that Joseph had sex with any 14 year old, what does it matter? Lets not confuse marriage or sealing with sex. One can marry and never have sex and one can have sex and never marry. One does not have to go with the other. C/P'd the below on Fairmormon. Why would he marry a 14 year old any way? Especially when in Jacob 2:30 it mentions the only time for it is to raise seed. And what 14 year old is ready to go through pregnancy at that age? Truly! Jacob 2:27-30 (emphasis added)27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people;OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto these things. Link to comment
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 21 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: SEE https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/14/us-new-york-children-young-14-can-marry Did you read the full article? I'm sure you had to have. It isn't a glowing report of how well marriage can be for a 14 year old girl. It's quite the opposite! Link to comment
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: C/P'd the below on Fairmormon. Why would he marry a 14 year old any way? Especially when in Jacob 2:30 it mentions the only time for it is to raise seed. And what 14 year old is ready to go through pregnancy at that age? Truly! Jacob 2:27-30 (emphasis added)27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; OTHERWISE they shall hearken unto these things. Funny how people miss this part: 27 - my brethren / there shall not any man among you 29 - this people I get likening the scriptures and all, but the banning commandment in verse 27 was given specifically to the people of Jacob. Last I checked most of us are neither Nephite nor Lamanite. Verse 30 could be seen to have wider reaching connotation ("my people") but that depends on how you read it I suppose. Link to comment
Recommended Posts