Age Of Marriage In 19th Century.

[jwhitlock]

Ask one.

UD

See post #9 - again.

[Loquacious Lurker]

I believe that lydia bennet was 'not yet 16' when she married, making her 15 actually

Hi, Bluebell. I thought Lydia was fifteen too, until I was reminded of this quote from the book, where Lydia's mother nearly freaks out with delight at the news of her impending marriage:

"My dear, dear Lydia!" she cried: "This is delightful indeed!â??She will be married!â??I shall see her again!â??She will be married at sixteen!â??"

So, yes, I think when Lydia met Wickham she was fifteen, but the actual deed was done at age sixteen. Thanks also for the Scarlet O'Hara reference. I forgot about her.

California said:

Jane Eyre (in which the heroine is not much older than the master of the house's little daughter, which master she marries)

Wuthuring heights, same deal. they're pretty much children.

I think in both books the girls were more like seventeen or eighteen. BUT, as in the case of Jane Eyre, Mr. Rochester was significantly older.

Uncle Dale, thank you for your thoughts. Most important of the issues you raised was the power differential, I think.

And thanks everybody else, too. I was curious as to what was in the literature of the time, as that, while not being historical or factual evidence, nevertheless reflects the values of the day. Jane Austen, writing in the heart of civilized England about a fifteen year old girl who marries at sixteen shows us a marriage which was scandalous -- not because of the age of the bride, but because she ran away to get married. So that is telling, I think. However, I do think that very late teens or early twenties was a far more regular age of marriage in both European and American brides. That's bourne out in both census reports and in popular novels of the day.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, thank you for your thoughts. Most important of the issues you raised was the

power differential, I think.

It is one factor to be considered. Were we talking about the marriage of two fourteen year-olds

in 19th century America, I would be forced to admit that such things happened now and then --

though it was in no way the social norm.

While living in the mountain Kingdom of Nepal during the early 1980s, I was frequently invited

to the weddings in the village where I worked. Without exception the brides in these unhappy

affairs were 11, 12, 13 -- and had not yet reached the age of their menarche. I know this because

of the repeated stories I heard, both from the grooms and from those brides' relatives. About half

of these affairs were polygamous, and in none of them did the girl have more than a token say-so.

I also know that these pre-menarche marriages were consumated -- for a typical aftermath to the

wedding ceremony was the display of a bloody sheet, proving the girl's virginity at first intercourse.

Those who argue that JS would never in his right mind have consumated a marriage with a

girl of 14, are also the same folks who argue that plural marriage was instituted to "raise up seed

unto the Lord" and that it was not just a symbolic sealing. I do not think we can have it "both ways."

Either the plural marriages at Nauvoo were typically consumated, or they were not typically so.

We must decide upon one explanation or the other.

Perhaps this is an issue I should take to the Public Information Office of the CofJCofLDS, in order

to determine what the official position of the topmost leaders may be. The fact that they do NOT

allow such underage marriage practices in the Church today speaks for itself, however.

Uncle Dale

.

[Tchild2]

The key issue here is the problem of overwhelming power being exercised by the husband (in this

case, Joseph Smith, Jr.) over a girl not yet mentally developed to the point of being able to make a

rational and informed choice regarding her marriage and her role in that marriage -- (not to mention

her not being physically developed to the point of bearing children, or emotionally developed to the

point of having healthy intimate physical relations with a man).

The same problem exists to this very day, in fundamentalist polygamous societies, where the "elders"

decide which very young girl will be married to which older, vastly more experienced and powerful

husband. Free agency is obliterated in such forced arrangements, and I think most of us will say

that is simply wrong.

Did the 14-year old girl have the development of mind and discernment necessary to make a reasoned

choice, in her "marriage" being sealed (and very likely consumated) with Smith? Did she exercise any

degree of free agency in the arrangement? Was it a good idea? Was it necessary? Was it God's will?

My opinion, on all counts, is "no!" -- and therefore we have every right to criticise Smith (regardless of

the fact that some other 14 year olds were also taken into marriages in that era).

This is the central crux of the issue in regards to Joseph Smith and younger women / girls. Marriage between one man and one woman may have occurred where the woman was disproprotionately younger, but why the need with a married man who was supposedly the prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that an all seeing God, would/should/had to have known that only a generation later would find the practice repugnant and not worthy of one who claims to speak on God's behalf and represent his kingdom on earth?

Was it a good idea? Based on the amount of apologetics needed to defend it and the level of criticism towards its practice; absolutely not. Was it necessary or was it God's will? Only if you are a believer rationalzing its behavior looking from the inside out. Otherwise, one only need assess the horrified reactions of nonvested non-member to gauge whether it was God's will or not.

Great posts as usual UD.

[jwhitlock]

Was it a good idea? Based on the amount of apologetics needed to defend it and the level of criticism towards its practice; absolutely not. Was it necessary or was it God's will? Only if you are a believer rationalzing its behavior looking from the inside out. Otherwise, one only need assess the horrified reactions of nonvested non-member to gauge whether it was God's will or not.

Actually, most of the "defense" you talk about is trying to get the critics of Joseph Smith to quit setting up their strawmen assumptions about what really went on. The critics have been resisting with some creative misdirection up to this point.

I guess it's easier just to lob criticisms from assumed high moral positions rather than actually address the questions posed.

[bluebell]

why the need with a married man who was supposedly the prophet of the dispensation of the fullness of times, that an all seeing God, would/should/had to have known that only a generation later would find the practice repugnant and not worthy of one who claims to speak on God's behalf and represent his kingdom on earth?

Do we have any evidence at all to support the idea that God has ever cared whether or not His commands were believed to be acceptable by society?

If no-then why is this arguement a valid evidence against polygamy?

[bluebell]

Hi, Bluebell. I thought Lydia was fifteen too, until I was reminded of this quote from the book, where Lydia's mother nearly freaks out with delight at the news of her impending marriage:

"My dear, dear Lydia!" she cried: "This is delightful indeed!â??She will be married!â??I shall see her again!â??She will be married at sixteen!â??"

So, yes, I think when Lydia met Wickham she was fifteen, but the actual deed was done at age sixteen. Thanks also for the Scarlet O'Hara reference. I forgot about her.

Yes, i think you are right with that-must have married after her birthday.

And just for the record. I do think that 14 years old was pushing it as far as being ready to be a wife and mother-and moreso in a polygamous relationship.

But since the girl in question lived with her parents after her marriage to Joseph for a few more years-it seems to me that the prophet agreed with my sensiblities and also did not believe she was ready to be a wife in the 'full' sense of the word.

[Tchild2]

JWhitlock wrote:

Interesting that when we discuss presentism as applied to Joseph Smith's time, that Dale refuses even to acknowledge the validity of such a discussion, and instead pontificates from his high and mighty moral pedestal as to how his enlightened sense of right and wrong is applicable to all ages. Anti-Mormon pompousness in its true colors.

Since Joseph Smith was acting as "the mouthpiece of God", does your case of "presentism" apply? Wouldn't that be the same as saying that God is changeable, and just going along with the times? Why is Joseph Smith given the the leeway of a presentistic rationale when he was acting on God's behalf? Can believers have it both ways? Do you get a God who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever", but whose prophets acting on God's behalf are allowed the errors of their day while supposedly enacting and instigating God mandated ordinances / doctrines?

God obviously doesn't see polygamy as "moral"...today (according to Mormon belief). In fact, God supposedly deems it serious enough to have the perpetrator excommunicated and exaltation in the celestial kingdom forfeited. Critics are only taking the same "moral high ground", that Mormons and their God take today towards religiously mandated polygamous marriages. Why was God so agreeable towards the practice only 100 years ago? Did God change his mind concerning what is moral or not, or what merits exaltation or not?

[LifeOnaPlate]

JWhitlock wrote:

Since Joseph Smith was acting as "the mouthpiece of God", does your case of "presentism" apply? Wouldn't that be the same as saying that God is changeable, and just going along with the times? Why is Joseph Smith given the the leeway of a presentistic rationale when he was acting on God's behalf? Can believers have it both ways? Do you get a God who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever", but whose prophets acting on God's behalf are allowed the errors of their day while supposedly enacting and instigating God mandated ordinances / doctrines?

God obviously doesn't see polygamy as "moral"...today (according to Mormon belief). In fact, God supposedly deems it serious enough to have the perpetrator excommunicated and exaltation in the celestial kingdom forfeited. Critics are only taking the same "moral high ground", that Mormons and their God take today towards religiously mandated polygamous marriages. Why was God so agreeable towards the practice only 100 years ago? Did God change his mind concerning what is moral or not, or what merits exaltation or not?

The church has always held that plural marriage is immoral only if it is not commanded and directed by God. The Book of mormon covered that issue.

[Jaybear]

The church has always held that plural marriage is immoral only if it is not commanded and directed by God. The Book of mormon covered that issue.

Where is the commandment that allowed JS to take as plural wives, women who were already married? Or are you suggesting that such marriages were immoral?

[jwhitlock]

Since Joseph Smith was acting as "the mouthpiece of God", does your case of "presentism" apply? Wouldn't that be the same as saying that God is changeable, and just going along with the times?

Presentism absolutely applies. And God does take the times into account. Or would you not say that God was acting differently in the past than He does today when He sanctioned Elijah slaughtering the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18?

Why is Joseph Smith given the the leeway of a presentistic rationale when he was acting on God's behalf? Can believers have it both ways? Do you get a God who is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever", but whose prophets acting on God's behalf are allowed the errors of their day while supposedly enacting and instigating God mandated ordinances / doctrines?

Are you indicating that someone who maintains he is a prophet of God must be perfect in all aspects of his life as God is perfect?? If so, you don't have a very good understanding of prophets, either in Biblical times or today.

Just so you understand, presentism is not used to justify actions, it is used to understand them. The fact that critics resist the application of presentism as part of the argument indicates that they really have no desire to understand Joseph Smith. The foundation of assumptions they impose on his actions is what they base their criticisms on. And that foundation is sandy, indeed.

God obviously doesn't see polygamy as "moral"...today (according to Mormon belief). In fact, God supposedly deems it serious enough to have the perpetrator excommunicated and exaltation in the celestial kingdom forfeited. Critics are only taking the same "moral high ground", that Mormons and their God take today towards religiously mandated polygamous marriages. Why was God so agreeable towards the practice only 100 years ago? Did God change his mind concerning what is moral or not, or what merits exaltation or not?

The decision to practice polygamy or not is a procedural decision, not a doctrinal, or mandated, or moral one. God may speak and change procedural direction as needed. It is indeed necessary to take presentism into account when looking at historical procedural directions as given by God, because those procedures may change from time to time as the will of God dictates. Your current moral stance has no relevance in determining whether past procedures were valid or not. The Bible gives examples of such procedural changes, such as commands given to Israel to slay, or not to slay.

I hope you understand that I was being facetious in giving critics "moral high ground". Dale's comments in post #11 were a transparent dodge to avoid answering the specific questions posed. The offended moral tone he took in the post did nothing to address the topic at hand; I have found that people who spout off in such an offended manner usually are on pretty shaky ground to begin with. It was instructive of the fact that critics often do not want to look too closely at what is actually factual in Joseph's life; they'd rather have us believe that their non-factual assumptions are correct.

[Homestar Runner]

please explain how this pertains to mormons only...

OK -- I will.

No, all you do is explain how it pertains to mormons. But again (and this is the third time I bring this up), why does this line of reasoning apply to mormons, but not the Old Testament? Why are 14 yr old girls not of "a healthy child-bearing maturity" in Joseph's time, but they are in Moses' time? How come Biblical people where "God's Mouthpiece" is present, all get a pass, but 19th century folks don't?

For that matter, how come you're not ticked off at Jesus? He sat there by the side of the well, waiting for a woman to show up so he could make her draw the water. He addressed women by calling them "woman" instead of using their real names. Where is the sermon on 20th century gender equality issues? He healed some lepers, where is his sermon on the disease of leprosy, and how the cultural understanding of "uncleanliness" was backwards, distorted, and wrong? He healed blind and lame He came into contact with - why did He leave the world locked into almost two millenia of backwards-thinking medical nonsense that condemned billions to unecessary torment and early death?

C'mon, Uncle Dale. If, by your words, "we have every right to criticise Smith" for doing culturally normal stuff that the 20th century disagrees with, then we must also have the right to criticize the OT prophets, and even Jesus.

HSR

[Homestar Runner]

Hang on a minute - I take it all back. If we're judging actors from the past by today's standards, I guess it's fair to actually know what today's standards really are.

Legal Age of Consent by State

Colorado 15

Connecticut 15

Florida 16/18 (bill pending)

Hawaii 14

Idaho 14

South Carolina 14/16

Virginia 15

Extra details

[Doctor Steuss]

Hang on a minute - I take it all back. If we're judging actors from the past by today's standards, I guess it's fair to actually know what today's standards really are.

Legal Age of Consent by State

Colorado 15

Connecticut 15

Florida 16/18 (bill pending)

Hawaii 14

Idaho 14

South Carolina 14/16

Virginia 15

Extra details

Yikes!

New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. If both parties are nonresidents of NH and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in NH under any conditions.

[Uncle Dale]

... But again (and this is the third time I bring this up), why does this line of reasoning

apply to mormons, but not the Old Testament?

OK -- cite an instance in the Hebrew Bible and I'll be most happy to condemn an immoral

situation there -- maybe Lot and his daughters, or David and Bathsheba -- whatever. Were

there very young women joined to unequal partners in biblical days? Were there marriages

which were ungodly in one way or another? No doubt the answer is "yes." But how shall we

begin to compare any of that to Warren Jeffs, or William Smith, or James J. Strang, or

Heber C. Kimball, or whatever latter day leader strikes our fancy? Shall we begin by saying,

"Well -- God allowed...." I think that would be a bad way to begin.

Why are 14 yr old girls not of "a healthy child-bearing maturity" in Joseph's time, but they

are in Moses' time?

Perhaps the better question is how were 14 year old girls in 1843 any different than in 2007?

And one answer is that the age of first menstruation was at least one year later during that

period -- and I think there is valid evidence to show that it was actually something more like

two years later. A previous poster here spoke of "presentism," but we moderns ought also to

consider that a 14 year old American girl of today may not be exactly what one was in 1843.

There are all sorts of health records you might consult, to see what the rate of miscarriage, birth

defects and life-spans are for infants born of 14 year-olds vs. those born of, say, 17 year-olds.

As for at least 3 or 4 girls I know in my own extended family, they could not even become pregnant

before the age of 16 or so. If Mormons wish to defend the notion that 14 year old girls are ready

for child-bearing, I believe the burden of proof rests upon them, and not upon me to show otherwise.

How come Biblical people where "God's Mouthpiece" is present, all get a pass, but 19th century

folks don't?

Cite me an example, and we can talk. But I will also remark that human society has been in a

continual state of evolution and advancement, in our medicine, our nutrition, our technology, and

many other fields, for many ages now. One of those "other fields" is that of social ethics and

morality -- of the rule of law and the concept of inalienable rights of individuals. All of that has

developed slowly for many centuries. In looking back at past societies, sometimes all we can

say is that one was slightly more advanced, or civilized, or moral than some of the others. I think

we just naturally identify with those historical cultures which were a bit more enlightened. We favor

Irish monks over Aztec human-sacrificers, or Roman law over barbarian chaos. That does not mean

the ancients were all that "good" or "decent" or even appropriate role models for us -- but some

were typically better than others, and I think that Jewish Torah was better than Hittite imperialism, etc.

For that matter, how come you're not ticked off at Jesus? He sat there by the side of the well,

waiting for a woman to show up so he could make her draw the water. He addressed women

by calling them "woman" instead of using their real names. Where is the sermon on 20th

century gender equality issues?

Do we really know what happened? If we had a time machine, and could go back and take a look,

would those episodes play out exactly as recorded? I doubt it. They were recorded within the views

and biases of that day and age and the stories reflect the lack of humanity all too evident then.

But if somebodu wishes to put forth a reasoned criticism of Jesus, on some particular social issue,

I'd be happy to discuss that -- start a new thread if you like.

C'mon, Uncle Dale. If, by your words, "we have every right to criticise Smith" for doing

culturally normal stuff that the 20th century disagrees with, then we must also have the right

to criticize the OT prophets, and even Jesus.

HSR

Agreed --- but since Smith is the topic at hand, let's not let go of that until we have discussed it

all as fully as we can. It is an important matter -- and even if we can never know all of the facts,

we can at least learn some lessons and apply those lessons to our situation today.

Lesson #1 --- A latter day "prophet" can make serious mis-judgments as to what is right and

wrong, and his/her prophet's mantle offers no protection from our inspection of these matters.

Lesson #2 --- Human free agency is God-given and we ought to remember that.

Lesson #3 --- These sorts of threads tend to get some people upset, but that may not be a bad thing.

UD

[Tchild2]

JWhitllock wrote:

Presentism absolutely applies. And God does take the times into account. Or would you not say that God was acting differently in the past than He does today when He sanctioned Elijah slaughtering the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18?

Well, I would say that the God of the new Testament was the same God of 19th Century Mormonism; Man's projection outward. Not God, but Man. So presentism does not apply if you want to claim God directives to initiate God doctrines, but then claim fallability or presentism for past gaffes on the prophet's part who claimed to be under direction of God.

Are you indicating that someone who maintains he is a prophet of God must be perfect in all aspects of his life as God is perfect?? If so, you don't have a very good understanding of prophets, either in Biblical times or today.

Having an opinion, holding racial biases and other culturally prevelant attitudes is to be expected, even amongst self proclaimed prophets. Excusing behavior that today is found immoral (by the same Christian standards one believes in today), and then explaining it away as man's or prophet fallability is nothing more than an apologetic device. If Joseph Smith was acting under God's behalf, then you are claiming by default that not only should we accept a presentistic view with Joseph Smith, but also God, the very supreme being Joseph Smith was supposedly inspired by and for. So should we view God as a changing being despite scriptures that state otherwise?

Just so you understand, presentism is not used to justify actions, it is used to understand them. The fact that critics resist the application of presentism as part of the argument indicates that they really have no desire to understand Joseph Smith. The foundation of assumptions they impose on his actions is what they base their criticisms on. And that foundation is sandy, indeed.

That is a good and valid point. There is definitely room to attempt to view Joseph Smith in the context of his time. I think such an attitude leaves more flexibility for the critic in seeking naturalistic explanations for the actions of J.S. more than anything. Understanding is always helpful and that is agreed.

The decision to practice polygamy or not is a procedural decision, not a doctrinal, or mandated, or moral one. God may speak and change procedural direction as needed. It is indeed necessary to take presentism into account when looking at historical procedural directions as given by God, because those procedures may change from time to time as the will of God dictates. Your current moral stance has no relevance in determining whether past procedures were valid or not. The Bible gives examples of such procedural changes, such as commands given to Israel to slay, or not to slay.

Polygamy was doctrinal and was part of the everlasting covenant necessary for exaltation and the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Plural marriage didn't have to be lived by all, but it had to be accepted and lived by those commanded to do so. Remember, Joseph was almost seared by an angelic minister of pain. When was the last time you heard of a "procedural" command enforced by an angel bent with a sword of flame?

You are off topic. Knock it off.

[Orpheus]

The topic is: Any other references in popular literature of the time that you know of?

If anybody is going to moralize and lecture they are off topic. Uncle Dale you are finished in this thread for having to make your case with a criminal. Stay out, you are off topic and violating Godwins Law.

[Orpheus]

Godwins Law should have shut down this thread but the next off topic and inflammatory post will. This started with a simple question if you can't stay on topic then get out of the thread.

[Paul Ray]

The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven.

You can verify this information via the internet by using some key words.

[mocnarf]

In some areas of the country and in some sub-culture girls being married at 14 or 15 is still common. I refer to the "Iris Travelers Clan" of South Carolina. See link:

http://www.rickross.com/reference/irish_tr...ravelers10.html

[kamenraider]

Here's a revelation from 1842 where the Lord makes it known that Joseph Smith's marriage to 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney is "right in mine eyes":

Wednesday 27th July, 1842

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto my servant N. K. Whitney, the thing that my servant Joseph Smith has made known unto you and your family and which you have agreed upon is right in mine eyes and shall be rewarded upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house, both old and young because of the lineage of my Priesthood, saith the Lord, it shall be upon you and upon your children after you from generation to generation, by virtue of the holy promise which I now make unto you, saith the Lord. These are the words which you shall pronounce upon my servant Joseph and your daughter S. A. Whitney. They shall take each other by the hand and you shall say, You both mutually agree, calling them by name, to be each other's companion so long as you both shall live, preserving yourselves for each other and from all others and also throughout eternity, reserving only those rights which have been given to my servant Joseph by revelation and commandment and by legal authority in times passed. If you both agree to covenant and do this, I then give you, S. A. Whitney, my daughter, to Joseph Smith, to be his wife, to observe all the rights between you both that belong to that condition. I do it in my own name and in the name of my wife, your mother, and in the name of my holy progenitors, by the right of birth which is of priesthood, vested in me by revelation and commandment and promise of the living God, obtained by the Holy Melchisedeck Gethrow [Jethro?] and others of the Holy Fathers, commanding in the name of the Lord all those powers to concentrate in you and through you to your posterity forever. All these things I do in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that through this order he may be glorified and that through the power of anointing David may reign King over Israel, which shall hereafter be revealed. Let immortality and eternal life hereafter be sealed upon your heads forever and ever.

[Dale]

Todd Comptom who wrote In Sacred Lonliness concluded Joseph Smith's relationship with Helen Mar Kimball was likely celibate. So it's possible words that suggest till death do you part might not suggest a mortal relationship. I have read that plus one inviting the Bishop Whitney, his wife and Sarah to meet with Joseph Smith. But Sarah wasn't dropped off to be with Joseph Smith and it was for a religious ceremony. Joseph Kingsbury did later term his marriage to Sarah as pretended. But he may have meant that he regarded himself as a surrogate husband in Joseph's place, so had no real right to claim here.

My point is that not all of Joseph Smith's young wives are known to be marriages in the usual sense of the term.

[charity]

You can make all your hypotheticals but I have one great grandmother married at 15, and one married at 14. Not LDS. Not even close to LDS. And each marriage lasted until the death of one of the partners. One had 9 children. One had 12 children.

[Nevo]

You can make all your hypotheticals but I have one great grandmother married at 15, and one married at 14. Not LDS. Not even close to LDS. And each marriage lasted until the death of one of the partners. One had 9 children. One had 12 children.

That's very interesting but we shouldn't assume that such cases were the norm. Very young marriages were rare actually.

Although the traditional age of consent for men was fourteen, and twelve for girls, very young marriages were never the custom. Many states enacted laws to raise the ages to seventeen for men and fourteen for women in the eighteenth century. Ages were raised again in the nineteenth century.

http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/arti...px?article=6046

Nineteenth-century American women married at an average age of 22 or 23. (The mean average age at first marriage for women in Massachusetts in 1845 was 23.9; see Thomas P. Monahan, "One Hundred Years of Marriages in Massachusetts," The American Journal of Sociology 56, no. 6 [1951]: 541; cf. Nancy F. Cott, The Bonds of Womanhood: 'Woman's Sphere' in New England, 1780-1835 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977], 13-14). So, yes, it was unusual even by nineteenth-century standards for Joseph Smith to marry a fourteen-year-old girl.

[SolarPowered]

Nineteenth-century American women married at an average age of 22 or 23.

...

So, yes, it was unusual even by nineteenth-century standards for Joseph Smith to marry a fourteen-year-old girl.

Now wait a minute--what was the distribution? An average of "22 or 23" tells us very little. 100% of the population marrying at 22 would give "average age of 22 or 23." But so would 50% marrying at 12, and 50% marrying at 33.

An "average age of 22 or 23" could very well exist in a society where it was not unusual at all to marry at 14.