Historian Benjamin Park: Would Joseph Smith be "Progressive" or "Conservative" in Today's Political Landscape?

[MustardSeed]

“Prove to me he was(or wasnt) sexual” is as productive to me as Amazon requesting proof that my package “did not arrive”.  
Marriage for legit reasons insinuates a sexual relationship more than suggesting a document only relationship.  If people are concerned that perhaps joseph was sexual with a 14 year old wife, let it be.  Im glad we dont allow such gross practice today.  

[smac97]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

One - I think NotaTBM is barking up the wrong tree. Based on my recollection (especially from the JSP and In Sacred Loneliness) I really don't think there's any question Joseph was sealed to Emma, but I do also recall it was after he had already been sealed to a number of other women.

That is my assessment as well.  And yet NotaTBM is only kinda sorta retracting his claim that Joseph was not sealed to Emma.

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Two - Your question, as stated, looks a lot like the simple fallacious demand to prove a negative.

I'm not sure.  In the Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam), Person A asserts a claim and then demands that Person B prove the claim is false to show that Person A's claim is true . Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance.  But that is not what has happened here.

NotaTBM ("Person A") made a factual claim: that Joseph was not sealed to Emma "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma."  Person B (smac97) responded:

Quote

I think this is incorrect.  See here.  Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.  Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation.  Do you have contrary evidence?  That Joseph and Emma were never sealed?

And here:

Quote

From Joseph's journal:

Quote

Sunday May 28. Clouds & rain.— cold.—

5 P.M.— adjournd council met in the upper Room. atten[d]ed to ordinances and counselled and prayed that James Adams. might be deliverd from his enemies454 who & O. P. [Orrin Porter] Rockwell.455 & the twelve be prospe[r]ed in collecting means to build the Nauvoo House456 <Joseph— & J[ames] Adams [[were married]]457

From footnote 457:

Quote

TEXT: Transliteration from Taylor shorthand: “w-r m-r-r-d”. No contemporary record giving more details on these marriages has been found. However, the marriages of the following day suggest that JS and Adams were married for eternity to their respective wives Emma Smith and Harriet Denton Adams. 

 

Person A made the assertion, and so he generally has the obligation to provide evidence for it.  This does not change if the assertion is "negative."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Notatbm said:

i dont know if you have children or not, but is there any proof anywhere you and your spouse had sex? Proof that I can look up? Did you testify of it, write an article, tell all your friends? Etc... There isnt any proof laying around I had sex before having children but i had a few episodes and that was before I was even married. Just because there is no "evidence" or statement that doesn't mean a thing. No  one runs around esp back then making a brag about having sex with their secret husband who is married to ten other women. The very purpose of polygamy is to have children so sex is going to be involved ..whether they had kids or not.

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.

[Notatbm]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

…

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.

Being dragged into court as you described it doesn’t sound much like anyone was on a brag about having sex with js. Sounds more like the govt compelled them to give testimony and were under threat of perjury if they lied.

 

as for Helen not testifying… I’m pretty sure the church didn’t want her up there stating she had sex with js as a 14 year old. If one considers that maybe if they did and waited till she was older she would have been 15 at the most since js was killed a year later. That would not have been the flex the church wanted. Even back then this marriage was sick. 

Edited Saturday at 02:47 PM by Notatbm

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Being dragged into court as you described it doesn’t sound much like anyone was on a brag about having sex with js. Sounds more like the govt compelled them to give testimony and were under threat of perjury if they lied.

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.

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

as for Helen not testifying… I’m pretty sure the church didn’t want her up there stating she had sex with js as a 14 year old. If one considers that maybe if they did and waited till she was older she would have been 15 at the most since js was killed a year later. That would not have been the flex the church wanted. Even back then this marriage was sick. 

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

Quote

• Fifteen-year-old Ann Ball married a rich South Carolina plantation owner, Captain Philip Dawes, age sixty.⁵⁰
• In California in 1841, forty-one-year-old Abel Stearns married fourteen-year-old Arcadia Bandini. Both the Catholic Church and the California colonial government gave permission to this marriage. The couple was popular, well respected, and for years was the center of Los Angeles society.⁵¹
• In 1769, fifty-eight-year-old widower Reverend John Camm approached fifteen-year-old Betsy Hansford about the importance of marriage. Tradition has it that both used Biblical scripture to demonstrate interest in one another and to justify their marriage. Because Reverend Camm had known the Hansford family long enough that he presided over her baptism as a baby, there was some comment on their age difference. Nevertheless, they married later that year, and he eventually served as the seventh president of William and Mary College in Williamsburg, Virginia.⁵²
• Forty-four-year-old F. C. Scott of Mound Valley, Nevada, his sixteen-year-old wife, Mary, who had in 1880 a six-month-old baby.⁵³
• [Page 200]Jose Abeta, age forty, and Maria, age fourteen of Conejos Valley, Colorado.⁵⁴
• Jose Baca, age thirty-five, and thirteen-year-old M’a Delicia of Huerfano, Colorado.⁵⁵
• William Skelton was in his early thirties when he married fourteen-year-old Vaitleain Vann in 1879 in Geyser, Montana. Vaitleain’s own mother, Marie, was fifteen when she married thirty-five-year-old Pierre Venne in 1862.⁵⁶
• William Turnage was twenty-one years older than Elizabeth Silverthorn, a part-Native American, who had barely turned thirteen at the time of their marriage in Lolo Fork, Montana, in 1871. After Elizabeth’s death in 1878, he married her younger sister, Annette Anna Silverthorne, in 1880. He was forty-three and she was sixteen. The girls’ mother, Elizabeth, was fifteen when she married forty-year-old John Samuel Silverthorn.⁵⁷

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.

[Notatbm]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is my assessment as well.  And yet NotaTBM is only kinda sorta retracting his claim that Joseph was not sealed to Emma.

Yea I am not retracting my claim. The evidence you cited is an inference. Maybe they should have written her name down in the record instead of being cryptic about it?? I dunno. You are probably right, but the record doesnt say the word "Emma."

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure.  In the Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam), Person A asserts a claim and then demands that Person B prove the claim is false to show that Person A's claim is true . Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance.  But that is not what has happened here.

NotaTBM ("Person A") made a factual claim: that Joseph was not sealed to Emma "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma."  Person B (smac97) responded:

And here:

Person A made the assertion, and so he generally has the obligation to provide evidence for it.  This does not change if the assertion is "negative."  

Thanks,

-Smac

As for the rest of this discussion, please continue on without me. Over the past year I have seen your posts and your "courtroom" duels with others that extend page after page focusing on even the tiniest of details. I went against my best judgement in even responding to you as I was like yea this is gonna devolve in a repeat of the "argument of the definition of what "is" is."...and it is starting to look that way. Thats fine, but I have better things to do and more interesting hobbies than to spend endless hours here responding to endless challenges.

Anyway- im not interested in conversing with you anymore as it seems as if you always require a court battle and fight down to the very last word over EVERYTHING. I prefer more base discussions so I apologize for even responding to you- trust me it will not happen again. I'm not about to get caught  up in the circus acts you have dragged others into and have this run on for days on end. 

You won...

As for the CFRs...do what you will with them. Make your final last legalistic point and have a mod go after me and ban me from the thread or whatever. You apparently have the energy to spend all day here like the time is billable hours or something so do whatever.

[Notatbm]

27 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

Well the church certainly didnt feel it looked all that great judging by this comment in the GTE re polygamy:

"The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

Edited Saturday at 08:26 PM by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

25 minutes ago, webbles said:

The church was actively helping.  They were the ones dragging the people in to testify. 

Again- this isnt the women going around bragging about sex with Joseph. They were "dragged" in to testify to that fact. 

[Pyreaux]

On 10/30/2026 at 2:51 PM, Notatbm said:

Yea she is a "Victim." I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls, but hey anything to defend Joseph. The poem below written by Hellen Mar Kimball doesnt portray someone who is happy nor really had a choice in the whole matter. I mean what 14 year old girl is going to want to marry some 38 year man? Answer: None

"I thought through this life my time will be my own The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free, And as the past hath been the future still will be. To my guileless heart all free from worldly care And full of blissful hopes and youthful visions rare The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept From sight and all looked fair... ...but pitying angels wept. They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold. And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled, Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise, Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price; Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny, And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes, And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart, Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot; But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown, Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn. Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw A glory in obeying this high celestial law, For to thousands who’ve died without the light I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright. I’d been taught to reveire the Prophet of God And receive every word as the word of the Lord, But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth, I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth."

Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them. The whole doctrine is for polygamy to be used as a method to rais up seed which means to have sex with his wives. Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them.

Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course

1. Helen’s Explicit Use of the Word "Wife"

In her later journals, public defenses of polygamy, and autobiographical letters, Helen directly referred to herself as a plural wife. For example, in an 1881 autobiographical letter detailing the arrangement, she signed her name as "Whitney Smith" to acknowledge both her earthly husband (Horace Whitney) and her sealed husband (Joseph Smith). [1, 2, 3]

In logic, this is your unsupported generalization being used as proof of a particular case. Historical evidence of a sealing establishes only that a sealing occurred. Evidence of sexual relations requires an additional evidentiary basis. "Marriage = Sex" sounds simple, but applying it to every plural sealing ignores all evidence about every other case of eternity-only sealings, like the ones with existing civil marriages and the differences in how each particular relationship was described. The historical consensus among both LDS and non-LDS historians including Richard Bushman, Todd Compton, and George D. Smith is that there is no evidence Helen's sealing was physically consummated. No one is saying that to "defend Joseph".

Helen’s own phrase, "The step I now am taking's for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free," directly supports the understanding that there was never cohabitation, never an unescorted visit, no suggestion of sexual relations and maybe a reference to her subsequent marriage to Horace K. Whitney in 1846. Her poem reveals her initial distress, how the social price became heavy, how she was isolated. She remained an active defender of Joseph Smith and polygamy. If she were angry at anyone, it was her father who pressured this. A person’s emotional state does not establish whether Joseph had sexual relations with them. A person can be angry and still be correct, a person can be calm and still be mistaken.

Don't reframe our dispute about whether your claim is justified as a dispute about whether you are permitted to make it. Of course you are entitled to an opinion. That does not make your factual claims accurate or exempt them from scrutiny. You have not identified any evidence that the existence of a sealing is sufficient to infer consummation. That inference is merely a starting hypothesis.

Edited Saturday at 09:07 PM by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

7 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Don't reframe our dispute about whether your claim is justified as a dispute about whether you are permitted to make it. Of course you are entitled to an opinion. That does not make your factual claims accurate or exempt them from scrutiny. You have not identified any evidence that the existence of a sealing is sufficient to infer consummation. That inference is merely a starting hypothesis.

The fact is she was sealed to Joseph as a wife. Another fact is she wasn’t permitted to go to  dances, date etc??? Hmmm wonder why that is? Prob because she was married AND had to hide that fact ( lie?) . In any case if she is married to the guy who is now a known lying liar who had sex with other plural wives and prob to some who were married to other men… well neither one of them have any credibility anyway. The whole thing was/is a twisted web of lies and going behind Emma’s back. Why do all that if you are not at least having sex with your plural wife??

 

anyway we can agree to disagree… I think the only reason this is so heavily fought against by TBMs is because she was fourteen. No problem admitting he had sex with some of the other ones even though that was flat out adultery because none of these marriages except to Emma were even legal in the first place. So much for the 12th  article of faith. The church still can’t follow that one if the sec scandal is any indicator. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

A 14 year old marriage was considered weird and “sick” back then, especially outside of the South. There are still states in the US today where you can get married that young with the right approvals but you will be viewed as odd if you do it. This was also not a legal marriage in the eyes of the government.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Well the church certainly didnt feel it looked all that great judging by this comment in the GTE re polygamy:

"The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday."

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.

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

Again- this isnt the women going around bragging about sex with Joseph. They were "dragged" in to testify to that fact. 

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 Nehor]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

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.

It was condemned. Think of it like a 70 year old marrying an 18 year old. It happens today and is legal but you are going to get side eyed and they will think the older person is a creep.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

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.

I don’t think these women really wanted to prove that Joseph was a polygamist. I think the church leadership wanted to prove it and convinced these women to help. I feel a little bad for the women having to do this since it wouldn’t have been a fun experience.

[Notatbm]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It was condemned. Think of it like a 70 year old marrying an 18 year old. It happens today and is legal but you are going to get side eyed and they will think the older person is a creep.

Leonardo DiCaprio comes to mind. He is 51 and routinely dates early twenties girls. He just got roasted at some Hollywood event about it… yea it isn’t cool and is def creepy

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think these women really wanted to prove that Joseph was a polygamist. I think the church leadership wanted to prove it and convinced these women to help. I feel a little bad for the women having to do this since it wouldn’t have been a fun experience.

Agreed. I bet not a single one of them WANTED to make public statements about their sex life with the prophet. 

[manol]

On 10/28/2026 at 11:28 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

As President Oaks once said, paraphrasing, there is some truth in Conservatism, some truth in Liberalism, but no salvation in any of them.  When Christ returns, He will do so as Sovereign King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and what He says, goes.   Which, to me, indicates that He might have to ask anyone who is too tightly wedded to a particular political ideology (whatever space one might claim on the political spectrum), "Will ye also go away?"  John 6:67.  I hope everyone here would answer as Peter did: "Lord, to whom shall we go?  Thou has the words of eternal life."  John 6:68.

I like your sense of perspective.

Where Joseph Smith would fall on the current political spectrum; exactly what practices accompanied his being sealed to multiple women; and what lens we should view all of that through may be very interesting topics, and I have no objection to these topics being studied and debated, but I don't think they really effect how I ought to live my life. 

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Yea I am not retracting my claim.

Even though you have no evidence for it.  Okay.

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The evidence you cited is an inference.

Yes.  I'm happy to consider alternative inferences.

8 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Maybe they should have written her name down in the record instead of being cryptic about it?? I dunno. You are probably right, but the record doesnt say the word "Emma."

So you are conceding the inference about Joseph and Emma being sealed is "probably right," but you are refusing to retract your claim that Joseph and Emma were never sealed?

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A 14 year old marriage was considered weird and “sick” back then, especially outside of the South. There are still states in the US today where you can get married that young with the right approvals but you will be viewed as odd if you do it. This was also not a legal marriage in the eyes of the government.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It was condemned. Think of it like a 70 year old marrying an 18 year old. It happens today and is legal but you are going to get side eyed and they will think the older person is a creep.

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.

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, webbles said:

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 did say that Southern aristocratic women married younger. The same is true or royal and noble girls in Europe. Their marriage value declines with age.

It is funny that you were saying these ages were normal but all the examples you share require special permissions and judicial investigations to prove their wasn’t kidnapping or extortion. That shows that marrying that young IS NOT normal. When two people marry at a socially acceptable age you don’t generally check whether someone was kidnapped. And no, it was viewed as odd and there was social scorn for marriages that young. It wasn’t the norm. It wasn’t casually acceptable or expected.

[The Nehor]

In today’s political landscape Joseph Smith’s “polyamory” would probably be lambasted more for its secrecy and the imbalance of power in a lot of the relationships so he probably couldn’t be elected. Meanwhile conservatives would be unimpressed by a sex scandal involving people of legal age. How gauche and backwards. Have a sex scandal involving minors while accusing the Left of all being groomers or GTFO!

He would have no political home.

[california boy]

20 hours ago, webbles said:

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.

Just some follow up questions I am interested in as you defend Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl.  Do you think that God told Joseph to marry a 14 year old?  Is God ok with men marrying 14 year olds if the person claims to have been told by God to do so?  Is God still ok with that?  Are you ok with someone claiming to be a prophet like some of these splinter group "prophets" marrying 14 year olds if they say God told them to?  Basically I am asking if whether it is in the 1800 or today, is God that kind of God that doesn't see any issue marrying 14 year old girls no matter when it occurs?

The second question:  What does that do to the life of a 14 year old who has never really dated, never got any opportunity to explore life and decide that she doesn't ever want to date men her own age.   Marriage at 14 means that basically she has put herself in a position to spend the rest of her life until her husband dies living as a wife decades older than her.  Making such a decision at 14, do you think that is fair for her?

And lastly, why did Joseph Smith even have to marry a 14 year old girl?  What was his motivation?  I get that you might not know what Joseph's reasoning for this was, but what is your best guess?

I think there are real reasons why most people believe that 14 is way too young to make such a decision, especially with someone who has authority over them in other ways to sway that decision.  

Really interested in your thoughts on this.  Maybe you can convince me that Joseph marrying someone at 14 is no big deal simply because it happened during a different time.  

Edited 11 hours ago by california boy

[webbles]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I did say that Southern aristocratic women married younger. The same is true or royal and noble girls in Europe. Their marriage value declines with age.

It is funny that you were saying these ages were normal but all the examples you share require special permissions and judicial investigations to prove their wasn’t kidnapping or extortion. That shows that marrying that young IS NOT normal. When two people marry at a socially acceptable age you don’t generally check whether someone was kidnapped. And no, it was viewed as odd and there was social scorn for marriages that young. It wasn’t the norm. It wasn’t casually acceptable or expected.

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.

[webbles]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just some follow up questions I am interested in as you defend Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl.  Do you think that God told Joseph to marry a 14 year old?

No

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is God ok with men marrying 14 year olds if the person claims to have been told by God to do so?  Is God still ok with that?

I don't believe God would command a man to marry a 14 year old.

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Are you ok with someone claiming to be a prophet like some of these splinter group "prophets" marrying 14 year olds if they say God told them to?

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.

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Basically I am asking if whether it is in the 1800 or today, is God that kind of God that doesn't see any issue marrying 14 year old girls no matter when it occurs?

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.

47 minutes ago, california boy said:

The second question:  What does that do to the life of a 14 year old who has never really dated, never got any opportunity to explore life and decide that she doesn't ever want to date men her own age.   Marriage at 14 means that basically she has put herself in a position to spend the rest of her life until her husband dies living as a wife decades older than her.  Making such a decision at 14, do you think that is fair for her?

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.

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

And lastly, why did Joseph Smith even have to marry a 14 year old girl?  What was his motivation?  I get that you might not know what Joseph's reasoning for this was, but what is your best guess?

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.

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think there are real reasons why most people believe that 14 is way too young to make such a decision, especially with someone who has authority over them in other ways to sway that decision.  

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.

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

Really interested in your thoughts on this.  Maybe you can convince me that Joseph marrying someone at 14 is no big deal simply because it happened during a different time.  

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.

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, webbles said:

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.

Would those investigations have taken place if one of them wasn’t so young? Doubt it. Seriously, the reason they did all this stuff is that the girl was abnormally young. Saying they “didn’t care” is silly.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Would those investigations have taken place if one of them wasn’t so young? Doubt it. Seriously, the reason they did all this stuff is that the girl was abnormally young. Saying they “didn’t care” is silly.

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):

Quote

in 1841, Don Abel Stearns petitioned both the civil government in Los Angeles and the ecclesiastical authorities for permission to marry Marie Arcadia Bandini. The dispensation from the Catholic Church was necessary for all couples because the authorities needed to investigate their suitability for marriage: the betrothed's ages, the circumstances of their births, possible betrothals to others, and the key issue of whether they were related to each other. Stearns also had to petition the civil authorities (the Prefect of the Second District of Alta California) because he was not Mexican by birth. Stearns, "wishing to avoid the ridicule which might arise among the idle young because of the disparity in years, she being 14 years old and I being 40," and because he was busy with important business matters in other places, requested of Fray Narciso Duran "to please exempt me the three banns, or at least two, I pledging myself to satisfy the alms which may be thereby imposed on me." Stearns lied about his age in the letter and in the marital investigation conducted by the church; he was actually forty-three.  Although the difference in their ages -- twenty-nine years -- and the fact he was marrying at this late age both seemed to embarrass him, it does not appear that Arcadia's own youthfuless was the issue here. Indeed, the Catholic Church, as we saw in the previous chapter, set eleven as the age below which a girl was ineligible for marriage, and by the time of Stearn's proposal, many other pubescent Californianas had married older Euro-Americans in Alta California. In any event, Duran granted the permission to marry on the first of May 1841, and also dispensed with the banns, as Stearns had requested.

 

Edited to add the quote from the book

Edited 8 hours ago by webbles

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

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

That quote doesn’t help. He literally lied about his age to make it seem less bad and was embarrassed by the age gap and you still want to say that this kind of age gap and marrying someone that young doesn’t include social scorn?