webbles

I provided my source. It is "American Child Bride" written by Nicholas Syrett. I've quoted the book a few times. Yes, the average age was in the 20s. But marrying a 14 year old was not sick back then. If you'd like to read it, you can borrow it through archive.org - https://archive.org/details/americanchildbri0000syre/page/52/mode/2up

I'm assuming you forgot to put a "not" in there. Because I don't believe D&C 132:61 refers to women who never had sexual relations. As for why, D&C 132 was either revealed to Joseph, invented by Joseph, or invented by Brigham. So, how they practiced would indicate how they understood it. And both of them were sealed to women who were already married and already had kids.

He lied about his age because he was marrying so late (43 is very late to get married). And the book says "it does not appear that Arcadia's own youthfuless was the issue here". So her age was not the problem. Add a few more years to her and his age, and he would still be worrying about the age gap and his age at marriage (probably even worse since he would be near 50). The man does worry about ridicule, but not because of how young she is. Here's another quote from the book:

Nope, both investigations had to occur because of the marriage. The first one was because it was a Catholic wedding and they had to make sure they were acceptable to be married. The second was because he wasn't Mexican. The book specifically points out that those investigations weren't triggered by age. The book brings them up to show how the investigations (which were normal and were going to be done no matter what) didn't care about her age. Here's the quote from the book (starts on page 39): Edited to add the quote from the book

No I don't believe God would command a man to marry a 14 year old. In today's world? No because 14 year olds shouldn't be married ever. But I also don't believe God would command a man to marry a 14 year old. This question doesn't make sense to me. Women have been married at younger ages for millennials. I don't think God was bothered by all of those marriages just because of the age. Agreed. We have, as a society, made it so that marrying a 14 year old shouldn't happen because of those reasons. I find it good that we condemn people now a days that marry that young. A 14 year old should be able to grow up. My best guess? This was a sealing of connection. He practiced a few types of sealings. Some were levirate (his brother's sister and a few other women who were widows), some were sexual, and some where sealing him to other families. An example of the later is the sealing between Brigham's sister and Joseph. She was 56 at the time. I feel like Helen was like that as well as a betrothal. Once she was older, it would have been a sexual marriage. As for why didn't Joseph just wait? I don't know. I don't have problems with people being disgusted by Joseph marrying a 14 year old. That's not where I'm pushing back on. If Joseph was alive today and married a 14 year old, I would condemn him. What I'm pushing back on is two things. The first is that he is similar to Warren Jeffs. I don't find the similarity because Warren grew up in an environment where marrying a 14 year old is condemned and wrong. Joseph's environment wasn't like that. The second is that what Joseph did was wrong in his own environment. It wasn't. It was rare and sometimes ridiculed (mostly because it was considered silly for a man to do that). But it wasn't condemned. I doubt I can. I have issues with him marrying a 14 year old. I wish he hadn't. But I don't think the marriage was sexual by the time he died (based on all of the known evidence, especially the Temple Lot case) so it feels more like a betrothal to me. I'm not trying to convince what Joseph did was right. Only that what he did wasn't wrong for his time and that he can't be compared to Warren.

For the marriage in California, I pointed that the investigations because they didn't care about her age. I should have been clearer. The Catholic investigation was over consanguinity, whether there were existing betrothals, etc. It didn't care about her age or his age. The Mexican investigation was because he was not a Mexican and so they had to make sure he was legally allowed to marry her. Again, they didn't care about her age or his age. The age was not the reason for the investigations. And the investigations didn't bring up the age. He asked for special permissions because of the ridicule, not because of the age disparity. I agree it wasn't the norm. I'm not saying it was the norm. I also agree it wasn't expected. I'm just saying it wasn't condemned or considered wrong or evil.

It really wasn't condemned. Unless you are talking about the late 1800s. The idea of girls needing to grow up before getting married didn't really take hold till the later 1800s. And even then, it started more from the idea that the girls were worth labor to the parents and they didn't want to lose that. "American Child Bride" by Nicholas Syrett talks about antebellum child brides (you can read it at https://archive.org/details/americanchildbri0000syre/mode/2up by logging in and borrowing it if you want). He discusses how the South was more lenient for child brides because they wanted to control the family wealth. The North saw daughters as more valuable for labor and so would prefer they didn't get married till later. The west was closer to the South. He gives several other examples of child brides that no one batted an eye against. One example is Abel Stens, a wealthy man born in Massachusetts who had moved to California, married Arcadia Estudillo, a daughter of a wealthy Mexican, in 1841. He was 43, she was 14. They had to get permission from the Catholic church (who investigated whether the marriage was acceptable per Catholic law) and civil authorities (because he wasn't Mexican). He did request to be exempted from the posting of the normal 3 banns because he wished "to avoid the ridicule which might arise among the idle young because of the disparity in years". So, he did worry about ridicule, but not condemnation or being considered "sick". Their marriage proceeded (with 0 banns) and they were one of the wealthiest families in California (both during Mexican rule and US rule). He also discusses legal cases around under age girls and how the cases weren't around the ages of the girls but around whether they were kidnapped or forced to marry the man or whether the parents were owed damages for losing their daughter. As some have said "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." Now a days, a man (of any age) who tries to marry a 14 year old would be condemned and stigmatized. That is not true of the mid 1800s.

I don't see the relevance of this when discussing the trial in 1892. That quote was written in the last decade or so. Yes, a 14 year old marriage in today's environment is very much a terrible thing. If Joseph was alive today and did that, he would be rightfully condemned. I doubt he would do it, though. But we are discussing a trial in 1892 and a marriage to a 14 year old was not condemned and was not considered evil. I'm the one using "dragged". Because back then, talking about sex was not something you want to do. And yet, three women did it because they wanted to prove that Joseph really was a polygamist. And, based on the scenario, I would assume any woman who could testify to that would have been involved. There were men who testified that their sisters had sex with Joseph. It was a way to show that Brigham Young was the true heir of Joseph Smith. With Helen being a being pro-polygamist, I don't see any reason why she would not have been involved if she could have helped. I think I understand where you are coming from. If two people are married, it defaults to sex. 100% agree. That was the default for Helen and Joseph. Sure, there was some evidence that argued otherwise, but the default is that sex happened. It wasn't until I learned about the particulars of the Temple Lot case that I felt there was enough evidence to override the default assumption. If she had sex with Joseph, I see no reason why she would not have been involved. She had every reason to be involved.

The church was actively helping. They were the ones dragging the people in to testify. The government wasn't part of the suit. The Temple Lot was between the Hedrickites and the RDLS over who owned the Temple Lot in Missouri. The Hedrickites had purchased it but the purchase was disputed. They also said they owned it by squatter right. The RLDS argued that they were the rightful heirs of Joseph Smith and so they should have it. The Hedrickites asked the LDS to help prove that the RLDS wasn't the rightful heirs. The Hedrickites were against polygamy (just like the RLDS) but they accepted that Joseph practiced and taught it and wanted to show that the RLDS can't be the faithful heirs because they don't practice polygamy. A 14 year old marriage was not sick back then. The polygamy was the problem, not the age. From https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/assessing-the-criticisms-of-early-age-latter-day-saint-marriages In some states, the age of consent was 10 for a girl. A 14 year old girl marrying an older man was rare, but it wasn't considered sick.

Helen's story is more complicated than you are attributing to it. She wrote one very public rebuttal to Joseph Smith III on how Joseph Smith actually taught polygamy. In it, she named 4 wives (the Lawrence sisters and the Partridge sisters). In another publication talking about family life, she again mentions wives of Joseph Smith (Sarah Whitney, Lucy Walker). She also says how there are other wives of Joseph Smith living in Utah. Neither time does she say she is included in that list. And, in regards to "no one bragging about sex", in the Temple Lot case, that was specifically what they were doing. Not really bragging but definitely trying to prove that Joseph had sex with the women. Women from multiple places in Utah were dragged into Salt Lake City to testify that they had sex with Joseph. That was the entire reason that the Utah church was involved in the case (not sure how much you know about the Temple Lot case but it was between the Hedrickites and the RLDS; the LDS was only involved to prove polygamy was real). The Temple Lot case was in 1892. Helen, by that time, was a well known advocate for polygamy and there were only 9 wives still alive. 3 of them were deposed: Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, and Lucy Walker. All 3 of them testified that they had sex with Joseph. Lucy Walker traveled all the way from Logan to attend. Helen was living in Salt Lake City. We know she was paying attention to the case (she mentions it in her journal). This is the one time where the church wanted any woman who could testify that they had sex with Joseph to be available. And yet Helen was never invited. Of the other 5, we have evidence that one had sex with Joseph (Almera Johnson) but she was ill and lived down in Parowan so that is a good reason she didn't testify. The others (Patty Session, Zina Huntington, Martha McBride, Mary Rollins) almost definitely weren't wives in the sexual sense (Patty, Martha, and Mary) or were more complicated (Zina). Helen's case wasn't complicated so the best reason for why she didn't testify is because she didn't have sex. For me, until I saw the Temple Lot situation, I thought it was likely that Helen and Joseph were intimate. But the Temple Lot case, plus everything else, convinced me that there was no sexual relationship between the two.

Why does it have to be the same? I see nothing wrong with the meaning being different. Especially when you look at how Joseph and others followed it. I have never seen any teaching that says that a polygamist wife must never have had sex.

I'm just pointing that the term virgin doesn't just mean someone who hasn't sex.

What's the source for the Eliza Jane Churchill Webb's testimony? Because I have read that Fanny Alger's marriage might have started more like an adopted daughter (in the Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy volume) but I don't recall him using any testimony from Webb for it.

I agree that we can infer from that that Joseph was sealed to Emma at that time. But it doesn't explicitly state her name. So, there could have been another woman. There's other circumstantial evidence that shows Joseph and Emma were sealed around then as well. But we don't have actual documentation that they were sealed together. We have to make an educated guess. And cipher might be too strong of a word but Taylor shorthand is not easily readable. If the researchers hadn't footnoted it, I would not have known that those scriggly lines actually read out as "w-r m-r-r-d". Willard Richards also does the same thing on June 12, 1843 when he writes about Joseph's sealing to Rhoda (his sister) and his (Willard) sealing to Susan Liptrot. That's one of the few contemporaneous records that indicate Joseph practiced polygamy (though it isn't positive because it doesn't say who married Rhoda) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/263

We know he didn't have sex with all of his wives. Several of them stated so. And if we look at the behavior of young brides with older men in Utah, it is extremely rare to find them having children until they are 18+. And then when you look at the Temple Lot case where all the woman who testified all said they were "husband and wife in deed" and we find that Helen was not included, even though she was in town and a very vocal polygamist. The evidence weighs pretty heavily towards Helen and Joseph not having sex. There isn't any evidence towards them having sex and a ton of evidence away from them having sex.