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.

He is probably saying this because we have no actual documentation that a sealing ever occurred between Emma and Joseph. In the journal on May 28, 1843, it says that Joseph was married. It uses a cipher to hide the "was married". But it doesn't mention who he was married to. Several of the men who were also sealed that day and the next were monogamists so it is most likely that Joseph was sealed to Emma. I like to bring this up when talking with people who say that Joseph didn't practice polygamy because there are no contemporary records of any of those sealings. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/233 is the journal for that day

Sure. Or we just accept that virgin has more meanings than the one you are trying very hard to force.

I'm saying that if 2 Nephi 27 was written because of the Harris/Anthon meeting, it does a really poor job at it. I have no idea who it would be. That's why I mentioned that maybe Joseph had it written before hand and then when Harris came back, Joseph could attach a name to 2 Nephi 27. Honestly, Mitchill might be a better fit but we have so little information on what went on in that meeting so no way to know for certain. When I was younger and heard about the Anthon story and 2 Nephi 27, I thought it was a really good match. And then as I read what Anthon said had happened and the Bennet account later in my life, it was a bit disappointing to me because the two stories really don't match. They match at an extreme superficial but nothing unique to 2 Nephi 27. It doesn't really even match Isaiah 29 either. So, I've started to wonder if attaching Anthon to it is a reframing of the prophecy to make the two match. That's why I can see 2 Nephi 27 being written before hand. Because if it was written afterwards, I would have expected the two stories to match more closely.

I was under the impression that 2 Nephi 27 isn't a very good match of what happened and it really needed a reframing to fit. Joseph Knight would be part of that reframing since he is a believer and would have that oral tradition. The 1832 history is also part of the reframing. Reading just what Anthon wrote in his letters (https://cipherfoundation.org/older-ciphers/anthon-transcript/charles-anthons-letters/) and what Bennet wrote in the Morning Courier (http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/courier.htm), there really doesn't seem to be anything like the back and forth as portrayed in 2 Nephi 27: "Bring hither the book, and I will read them." "I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed." "I cannot read it." I believe the earliest that shows up is Joseph's 1832 history which points to being a possible reframing of the story to fit 2 Nephi 27 since it doesn't naturally fit it.

Why are you now talking about Muslims? I don't see what this has to do with D&C 132 or with what Joseph F. Smith said. It is an interesting diversion but not sure what it has to do with your original subject.

You apparently didn't actually read what I wrote. Because I said that the first line was in the earlier section, just as you show in your image. The problem is that you quoted both lines together as if they were actually together. They aren't they are in separate paragraphs and even separate sections. They come from 2 very different original sources. The 2 lines don't fit together. That's why I asked where you got it from. Because if you had gotten it from the actual source (which you just shared), you would have noticed that they are not related and wouldn't have pasted both together as if they were related.

So, you concede that in a fairly innocuous place (the library), she would raise her guard just because a man sits next to her? Would she do the same if it was a woman? I'd posit no. I don't see how that is "situational awareness and particularized circumstances". That seems to just be normal day to day stuff. I admit the logical corollary (I don't know why you think I'm not admitting it). Every subset of man (black men, white men, etc) is also potential rapists. But when you make a sentence that singles out the subset of men, that is where the prejudice comes from. The skin color of a man doesn't make him any more dangerous than another. If the statement was "all black men are rapists", that is a prejudiced and pointless statement. Because most rapists are generally those who you know and probably the same skin color as you. If the statement was "all men of the same race as you are rapists", I think I might accept that since I think the statistics bear that out. And yes, it is per se sex-based prejudiced statements. That doesn't make it an ugly statement. Just like how Pence used a sex-based discrimination to exclude all women from his personal space unless his wife was there. For some, it sounded like sex-based prejudice but you seem to see it as a good thing.

But that isn't D&C 132. So, I don't know why we need to use that definition for D&C 132. Also, the Bible doesn't always use virgin with that meaning. Joel 1:8 - Lament like a virgin wearing sackcloth for the bridegroom of her youth. (ESV) Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth. (KJV) Unless you want to say that marriage was never consummated, this verse is describing a widow as a virgin.

Fine, "all white, black, brown, red, green, purple, yellow, pink, etc men are potentially dangerous to women". I agree with that statement. I disagree with "all black men are dangerous to women" because it is singling out black men. Black men are just as dangerous as white men.

I said replace my phrase with yours in my argument. You didn't seem to do that. I get you don't like my phrase but the only reason your phrase is different from my phrase is because you think women can have places they don't need to be aware. So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry? Or if a man stood behind her? Those men are minding their own business and not doing anything. Just being close to her. If a boy next to your daughters, who she doesn't know, moved their hands that brushed their thighs or head or some part of the body, would your daughters think nothing of it? The boy is completely innocent and not doing anything. I don't know why you see it as ugly prejudice. I find it intelligent behavior. It doesn't make a standing character judgement. When I hear the phrase "all men are potential rapist", it doesn't tell me that I'm a rapist. It tells me that if someone doesn't know me, they should treat me as a potential danger. Because they don't know what I will do. I know that I will not be raping them, but they don't. So they should act accordingly.