Do All Churches “Hide” History?

[LeSellers]

Thanks, Lehi.

You are most welcome.

I was just saying, it's that huge age gap that (in any era) just doesn't seem right, y/k? Very difficult for me to just look past that.

Chronocentrism is a very common fallacy, especially in its presentism variety.

It was far from uncommon for a Civil War veteran to marry in the 1920s (55 years after the end of the war) to a girl in her teens or twenties. That would put some fifty or sixty years between them. the last such widow died in 2004 (he had worn gray), and the last Union widow in 2003.

Lehi

[Libs]

You are most welcome.

Chronocentrism is a very common fallacy, especially in its presentism variety.

It was far from uncommon for a Civil War veteran to marry in the 1920s (55 years after the end of the war) to a girl in her teens or twenties. That would put some fifty or sixty years between them. the last such widow died in 2004 (he had worn gray), and the last Union widow in 2003.

Lehi

Well, I had to go look that up. That's most interesting. It seems the Conferedate widow married him for his $50 a month pension (not bad for 1927 - you could probably live on that).

Chronocentrism, eh? Maybe... Just didn't seem like something God would expect. I mean, why?? They didn't even have children, so that wasn't the reason. It just doesn't make sense.

[TAO]

The taking of one very young wife can be excused as a failure of judgement or possibly seen as a reflection of supply and demand in the sense that maybe there just weren't any other women available of a more suitable age during that time. It isn't desirable but it is understandable. The taking of multiple young women when one already has a number of wives shows an agenda.

Alas, one is not showing why it is a faliure of judgement. The reason you give, is it is a failure of judgment because society says it is. That is not a good reason, really. It is a reason for temporary behavior, but not permanent, my friend. It is a good reason not to be prejudiced against, but not a good reason if you want to justify an action.

And there you have the crux of the problem. One must believe that God actually did command, which I don't believe he did........

There can't be a precedence for everything, my friend, there is always a first time, so to say. May I point out an instance where his prophet commanded it though?

2 Samuel 12: 8,11

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up ^aevil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

(No bold in original text)

The Lord gave David his masters wives, and now he is giving them unto his neighbor. Singular neighbor, I am not sure. But it says in those verses, God gave them.

There is no biblical precedent. In ancient times God may have "winked at" or permitted the taking of plural wives but I don't see anywhere that he commanded the taking of plural wives against one's free agency and as a condition of salvation. LDS see plural marriage as a higher law. My reading sees it more as a part of ancient culture and tradition that God eventually weeded out.

What about with Abraham? You may define concubines as different than wives, and yet, I don't think the Lord looks at them quite in this way. You are ignoring some things, my friend, and you need to look them over. There are times when God commands it. I think he tries to avoid it at most of the time (a Brigham young quote comes to mind), but he does command it when he believes he should.

As for free agency, nah... God did not remove that. He said, that Joseph would die if he did not do that, no? Spiritual death, perhaps? I believe there are some other people who have been threatened in that way before... Alma, for instance. No, that is not a removal of agency. That is a condition of salvation - obeying the commandments of God. The saying goes, 'when God commands, and a man obeys, that man will always be right'. I think that applies in this instance, though it may be difficult to say. Sometimes God commands difficult things, things that will be hard for us to do. Should we not do them because of it? Nah... we must do them, for we have a degree of knowledge, and they will lead to good things, my friend. A hard lesson - especially considering what God was asking - but a true one - one equal to what God asked of Moses, perhaps.

I hope you understand I am not trying to insult you, or belittle you, but I think you are really assuming, here. And I think you are not realizing what God will command sometimes, for us to be tested, and for his purposes to be revealed. I am being tested... I have gotten a little break recently, but I have reason to think that God is not done with me yet. Palerider, my friend, he gives us hard trials, but he is such a good God indeed!

Best Wishes, your friend,

TAO

[Calm]

I see your point but it is the polygamy issue (for me) that makes the taking of young women unacceptable (or older for that matter). If one (an older man, say) takes a relatively young woman to wife, it can be seen somewhat as "robbing the craddle" which might be looked at askance by some, but is still viewed as a singular occurance of questionable judgement. However when there is a repetitive trend one has to question the true motivations of the thinking behind the decisions.

The link I posted showed that JS actually took less younger wives and more older ones than the men around him (treating each relationship as a separate issue). If it was all about sexual motivations, it seems a strange way for it to manifest. Why not a much higher percentage of younger wives and no older ones?

[Yirgacheffe]

I think it is a misrepresentation to characterize the occasional marrying of younger people as the norm in Joseph's time.

From all we've read, and it's been a lot lately (two sets of twin girls 11 and 13 awaiting this) about menses the average age of menarche in 1860 was 16.9 years. All four of my girls are annoyed at this drop in age of onset.

[Calm]

From all we've read, and it's been a lot lately (two sets of twin girls 11 and 13 awaiting this) about menses the average age of menarche in 1860 was 16.9 years. All four of my girls are annoyed at this drop in age of onset.

In the case of Helen Mar Kimball who was shy three months of her 15th birthday, she describes herself as looking older than she actually was. At that age, it is highly unlikely that she was not past puberty if she looked older. IIRC as I've had this conversation before menses depended a great deal on nutrition and location, farmers or rural families would likely have access to better overall nutrition than urban factory or other type of working families.

[Palerider]

From all we've read, and it's been a lot lately (two sets of twin girls 11 and 13 awaiting this) about menses the average age of menarche in 1860 was 16.9 years. All four of my girls are annoyed at this drop in age of onset.

WOW....two sets of twins.

My own daughter started at the early side of 11. We were hoping it would be later but you deal with what you have to.

Have you done any reading on the influence that "growth hormone" which is given to cattle and is in our beef supply, has had on the U.S. population? I've heard it is highly suspect for early onset.

Sorry to derail.....

[Palerider]

The link I posted showed that JS actually took less younger wives and more older ones than the men around him (treating each relationship as a separate issue). If it was all about sexual motivations, it seems a strange way for it to manifest. Why not a much higher percentage of younger wives and no older ones?

When you say "the men around him" are you referring to others who took plural wives or men marrying in general?

Also Joseph used the older wives to influence the younger ones to accept his proposals. I think his deviation was progressive........

[Calm]

When you say "the men around him" are you referring to others who took plural wives or men marrying in general?

In general, if you looked at the link you would have known that the data was from census records which do not record polygamous marriages and Black's book about marriage in the Nauvoo era, which is also a general marriage study.

Also Joseph used the older wives to influence the younger ones to accept his proposals. I think his deviation was progressive........

CFR please.

[cksalmon]

And that is your error. People who hold their religion close to them (which includes all definitions thereof) act in those terms.

Right, but Southern Baptis[m] is not a "religion."

Denomination is a religion.

No. If you wish to collapse the two, I can't stop you, but just realize that your equation of the two is strained and doesn't at all reflect how the vast majority of denominational groups actually view their denominations. I certainly reject your equation and see no need to accept it on your say-so. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any sizable constituency of any Protestant denomination who agrees with you that, say, Southern Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians and Lutherans, etc., are members of separate "religions." That's just not how we understand or use the term; denominations are subgroups of Christianity, not separable religions.

You cannot honestly compare protestant groups which do not have a central authority with the Church of Jesus Christ, which does. It is a false comparison.

Well, sure I can. In fact, that would be a pretty important area of comparison (actually, contrast, in this case). But, your complaint here seems to reinforce my point.: viz., that for Utah Mormons there is no such thing as one Mormon denomination amongst many. Mormonism is a religion unto itself. It is not--or, at least, it didn't begin as--a denominational subgroup of any other religion. But, when you lay that sort of grid on other groups (like my own) whose history and self-identification has never involved the genesis (or, restoration) of a separate religion, you're just failing to accurately represent folks like me.

However you also tend to overlook that most of those who do the complaining don't want the actual story, they want "their version" of it.

I'm at a loss to identify anything I've written above that reveals my tendency to do any such thing, Jeff.

I've attempted to respond, from my perspective, to my understanding of Mormon religious identity in light of the particular issue raised in this thread, and I may have gotten something wrong. I'm certainly open to correction. In that light, I trust you don't want to propound "your version" of my denominational and religious self-identity more than you want to know "the actual story."

To press the issue, so that I understand where you're coming from more clearly, perhaps you could answer the following:

Is Mormonism:

(1) a separate religion from Christianity?

(2) a denominational subgroup of the larger religious tradition of Christianity?

(3) Christianity itself?

(4) Something else entirely? If so, how would you relate Mormonism to, say, Presbyterianism?

[Palerider]

In general, if you looked at the link you would have known that the data was from census records which do not record polygamous marriages and Black's book about marriage in the Nauvoo era, which is also a general marriage study.

CFR please.

From the diaries of Eliza Partridge (with commentary)

Soon after Emily refused Joseph’s letter, Elizabeth Durfee, who had married Joseph the previous year, invited Emily and Eliza to her home. Emily recalls being tested, “She introduced the subject of spiritual wives as they called it in that day. She wondered if there was any truth in the report she heard. I thought I could tell her something that would make her open her eyes if I chose, but I did not choose to. I kept my own council and said nothing.” Emily later learned “that Mrs. Durfee was a friend to plurality and knew all about it.” On their walk home from Mrs. Durfee’s, Emily raised courage enough to mention Joseph’s offer to her sister: “[Eliza] felt very bad indeed for a short time, but it served to prepare her to receive the principles that were revealed soon after.” Joseph approached Emily again on February 28, 1843, her nineteenth birthday. Emily said, “He taught me this principle of plural marriage...but we called it celestial marriage, and he told me that this principle had been revealed to him but it was not generally known.” A week later, “Mrs. Durf[ee] came to me...and said Joseph would like an opportunity to talk with me...I was to meet him in the evening at Mr. [Heber C.] Kimballs.” Not wanting to incur any suspicion, Emily didn’t change from the dress she had been working in that day. “When I got there nobody was at home but [the Kimball children] William and Hellen Kimball...I did not wait long before Br. Kimball and Joseph came in.” Emily recalls that Heber and Joseph sent the Kimball children to a neighbor’s home, and pretended to send Emily away as well: “I started for home as fast as I could so as to get beyond being called back, for I still dreaded the interview. Soon I heard Br. Kimball call, ‘Emily, Emily’ rather low but loud enough for me to hear. I thought at first I would not go back and took no notice of his calling. But he kept calling and was about to overtake me so I stopped and went back with him.”

Regarding Melissa Lott:

In June of 1843 Melissa was back at home living on the farm with her parents. Near the end of the month, Eliza R. Snow, Elvira Holmes, Elizabeth Durfee and Elizabeth Whitney visited the Lott farm. Eliza, Elvira and Elizabeth D. had married Joseph Smith a year earlier. Elizabeth W. was the mother of another one of Joseph’s wives, Sarah Ann Whitney. As a “Mother in Israel”, Elizabeth Durfee previously had an influential role in preparing the Partridge sisters to accept a plural marriage proposal from Joseph. Perhaps these women now helped prepare Melissa in the same way.

Regarding the study you have mentioned, I'm sure the study itself is probably correct, but the use of it in this case is inappropriate.

Having studied statistics enough to know that one cannot compare apples to oranges, In order to make your conclusions valid you would have to compare Joseph's polygamous marriages to those of a large group of other men who were also practicing plural marriage. As it is, you have no true beginning reference point or standing for comparison......

[Calm]

Having studied statistics enough to know that one cannot compare apples to oranges, In order to make your conclusions valid you would have to compare Joseph's polygamous marriages to those of a large group of other men who were also practicing plural marriage. As it is, you have no true beginning reference point or standing for comparison......

That would be the case except for the fact that the purpose of the study was to compare the range of Joseph's marriage to the range of the culture surrounding him to see if the age range of the marriages, not the polygamy, was within the range of acceptability for the society.

I am curious as to how you would explain the marriages that occurred later in 43 to 4 women (out of over the age of 30 if the only reason for him to marry older women was to influence younger women to marry him. Why would he keep marrying older women at the same rate as younger ones if he was already successful with younger ones? In fact, the two eldest (56 and 58) were among the last he married.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 May 2011 - 10:08 AM, said:

And that is your error. People who hold their religion close to them (which includes all definitions thereof) act in those terms.

Right, but Southern Baptis[m] is not a "religion."

Quote

Denomination is a religion.

No. If you wish to collapse the two, I can't stop you, but just realize that your equation of the two is strained and doesn't at all reflect how the vast majority of denominational groups actually view their denominations. I certainly reject your equation and see no need to accept it on your say-so. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any sizable constituency of any Protestant denomination who agrees with you that, say, Southern Baptists and Methodists and Presbyterians and Lutherans, etc., are members of separate "religions." That's just not how we understand or use the term; denominations are subgroups of Christianity, not separable religions.

Denomination in the end is little more than a designation of any subgroup, whether it be a denomination of baptists, or christianity, or denomination of theists in general. The term is vague and not workable since baptists often do consider themselves distinct on a religious level with Catholics. The worshipful following of Christ for instance is not sufficient in terms of defintion to be a denomination of Christianity, ask any Baptist about "Mormons" and they will tell you that it is a different religion, not a different denomination of the religion they follow.

Suddenly we end up with "not denominations of Christianity" (all claiming to be the one true followers of Christ), but different "religions" that claim to be the true followers of Christ. If you posit a Baptist and ask them if they are of the same religion as Catholics, only a different denomination, you will be in for a most unpleasent suprise.

Quote

However you also tend to overlook that most of those who do the complaining don't want the actual story, they want "their version" of it.

I'm at a loss to identify anything I've written above that reveals my tendency to do any such thing, Jeff.

Your tendency to do what? Only accept your version of history? Do you believe you have an objective version that is somehow perfectly contextual and in effect unassailable? If you believe so, then you have achieved what no historian in modern times believes to be possible. One wonders how you have achieved such a miracle when others will acknowledge that such is not possible?

I've attempted to respond, from my perspective, to my understanding of Mormon religious identity in light of the particular issue raised in this thread, and I may have gotten something wrong. I'm certainly open to correction. In that light, I trust you don't want to propound "your version" of my denominational and religious self-identity more than you want to know "the actual story."

I have boldened "perspective" because it reflects an acknowledgement that such is your version or your context of history. Which was my original point. And whether I speak of denomination or religion, the two can be collapsed since a baptist does not consider the catholic church to be a shared religion. Indeed they reject the Catholic church in both authority and difference in theology. One can claim an over arching "Christianity" of which they are denominations, thus being the same relgion, but then one can claim any theistic belief system to also be sub denominations of religion meaning a a beleif in a controlling power. So the scale is whatever you want it to be isn't it? And whether you seem to accept a lower scale or higher scale of "denomination" in the end you cannot reject another when its use is wholly legitimate.

But of course this is a side issue.

People take their denomination to heart and identify with it closely. And their religion.

Now to your questions.

1-The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a Christian church, we follow Christ, and we claim He leads our church. Many churches consider ours to be a separate religion, but we identify ours as Christian. We follow Christ and His teachings.

You may reject such a view because that is your "version" or your "perspective" in history.

So when you state:

I think we'd agree that Mormonism is not a denomination of Christianity in the sense that, for example, Methodists and Southern Baptists and Presbyterians are considered to be denominations of Protestant Christianity. At the very least, Mormonism didn't begin with that sort of self-understanding. Rather, Mormonism began as a separate religion--and not just a separate religion, but according to the LDS understanding, the true and pure Christian religion, restored and stripped of sectarian clutter.

I would disagree slightly since our church did not begin as a separate religion, it began as a restoration of the original religion (and authority which was lost) which holds remanents (scriptural knowledge and incomplete wisdom) in most other modern Christian religions, meaning there is a connection making us all Christian.

2-a denominational subgroup of the larger religious tradition of Christianity?

Do you mean in the sense that a true source can be a subset of other groups?

So as you can see from my perspective, as a convert to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I believe that all people may have their "version" of history, and unfortunately history is often misconstrued because those who want history, want enough to push forward their version, not enough to also question their version. Now as a Latter-Day Saint I constantly have people push forward their "version" of my history to me. Generally I do not push my view because having been German Catholic, with German Lutheran families, and Southern Baptists thrown in, I can understand their versions and their accomplishments and their love of God. Just as I love God.

But with these versions being pushed in my face, I generally try to raise points that bring into question "their version" of my denomination's history, unfortunately many will hear none of it. Hence giving rise to my statement point.

That people tend to react when close to their denomination (or relgion) much in the same way they react when someone is questioning something about "themselves". That you personalize the way you feel, that sometimes things cannot be explained in their proper context because there are unknowns.

[Yirgacheffe]

WOW....two sets of twins.

My own daughter started at the early side of 11. We were hoping it would be later but you deal with what you have to.

Have you done any reading on the influence that "growth hormone" which is given to cattle and is in our beef supply, has had on the U.S. population? I've heard it is highly suspect for early onset.

Sorry to derail.....

To continue the side track

Yep two sets of twins, my family flings eggs like confetti I actually read a lot about the "growth hormone" issue before I had kids so even before we had kids we were incorporating products that didn't have GH in our diet. It probably was more on my radar with a number of family members involved in growing and distributing organic foods and one of my husbands oldest friends (2nd grade) being a "health food nut". I try to strike a balance with all the info, so the milk we use is hormone free, cheese is iffy (I love cheese) we have bison and organic chicken (sources for these provided by the "health food nut") and salmon. Overall though we don't eat a lot of meat, the girls just don't eat much and one girl just doesn't eat it at all. She has never actually eaten meat she's tried to eat it but can't seem to swallow it, just chews it forever, or at least until I tell her to just spit it out. She is also the child that won't drink any soda at all, will not eat anything like a twinkie, she doesn't like the filling, she won't eat frosting or whipped cream so I am willing to believe meat is just something she doesn't like. They will on the other hand eat any vegetable they've come across, brussel sprouts, beets, broccoli, cauliflower and any green leafy thing you put in front of them. My husbands is has a certain sadness over his "rabbit family" Oh and ice cream, our ice cream is not GH free, we love ice cream and cheese.

So far we are at 13.25 years and no start, this makes them and my husband happy. My husband is concerned about the future "toilet mice" load, we had sewer problems once and it was not pretty.

[Palerider]

That would be the case except for the fact that the purpose of the study was to compare the range of Joseph's marriage to the range of the culture surrounding him to see if the age range of the marriages, not the polygamy, was within the range of acceptability for the society.

I am curious as to how you would explain the marriages that occurred later in 43 to 4 women (out of over the age of 30 if the only reason for him to marry older women was to influence younger women to marry him. Why would he keep marrying older women at the same rate as younger ones if he was already successful with younger ones? In fact, the two eldest (56 and 58) were among the last he married.

Again, whoever thought that they could conduct the study with the stated purpose of comparing the range is attempting to do the impossible. It is a flawed premise from the outset. How can one compare one man (or even 5000) who has chosen to marry one young woman with one man who has chosen to marry five? You have no baseline to start from. The study is invalid.

Regarding the marriage of the older women, it just serves to show that he was interested in obtaining as many as possible regardless of age, so long as they were in the relative bloom of life. The taking of younger women who most would deem inappropriate to his age, is just a magnification of the primary aberation.

It's a lot like trying to draw conclusions about a serial killer who has killed 25 people all between the ages of 18-20 and an individual who has committed aggravated manslaughter against a person who is 19 and saying "See, the serial killer is in the normal range" and should be judged the same.

[Palerider]

To continue the side track

Yep two sets of twins, my family flings eggs like confetti I actually read a lot about the "growth hormone" issue before I had kids so even before we had kids we were incorporating products that didn't have GH in our diet. It probably was more on my radar with a number of family members involved in growing and distributing organic foods and one of my husbands oldest friends (2nd grade) being a "health food nut". I try to strike a balance with all the info, so the milk we use is hormone free, cheese is iffy (I love cheese) we have bison and organic chicken (sources for these provided by the "health food nut") and salmon. Overall though we don't eat a lot of meat, the girls just don't eat much and one girl just doesn't eat it at all. She has never actually eaten meat she's tried to eat it but can't seem to swallow it, just chews it forever, or at least until I tell her to just spit it out. She is also the child that won't drink any soda at all, will not eat anything like a twinkie, she doesn't like the filling, she won't eat frosting or whipped cream so I am willing to believe meat is just something she doesn't like. They will on the other hand eat any vegetable they've come across, brussel sprouts, beets, broccoli, cauliflower and any green leafy thing you put in front of them. My husbands is has a certain sadness over his "rabbit family" Oh and ice cream, our ice cream is not GH free, we love ice cream and cheese.

So far we are at 13.25 years and no start, this makes them and my husband happy. My husband is concerned about the future "toilet mice" load, we had sewer problems once and it was not pretty.

Sounds like you're on the right dietary track anyway. I'm glad all mine are married now. Best of luck with yours .

[Calm]

Again, whoever thought that they could conduct the study with the stated purpose of comparing the range is attempting to do the impossible. It is a flawed premise from the outset. How can one compare one man (or even 5000) who has chosen to marry one young woman with one man who has chosen to marry five? You have no baseline to start from. The study is invalid.

Did you even bother to read the study? It is perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges what you are researching is fruit. You appear to have missed the point of the study.

If you told a person who was studying the differences and similarities between apples and oranges that they were limited to only comparing apples with apples, they would be thinking that your qualification pretty much defeats the purpose of the study.

If one is studying the differences and similarities of Joseph's plural marriages/sealings with the civil marriages of his community and culture, then it is rather important to include monogamous marriages in that comparison.

[Calm]

Regarding the marriage of the older women, it just serves to show that he was interested in obtaining as many as possible regardless of age, so long as they were in the relative bloom of life.

Creating a new theory for each situation is not all that helpful.

Starting out implying that Joseph engaged in polygamy for the purpose of "obtaining" young women, then adding when it was pointed out that he married older women as well (out of 33 women, 14 were 22 or younger, 15 were 30 or over) that he married older women so that they could influence the younger ones into marrying him and then altering your explanation again when it was pointed out yet again that he was marrying significantly older women (30 and older) at the same rate as the younger (younger than 30) the last year of his life (4 of each, including two women in their 50s) that he was really just interested in obtaining as many women as possible makes it appear like you really hadn't thought through your reasoning, but just made assumptions without first looking at the data, thus having to adjust them when those assumptions didn't match up. Not very impressive.

PS: I don't know what age you are, but most men I know less than 40 years of age (most of JS's plural marriages occurred in 42-43, when he was 35-37 years of age) don't think of women twenty years older in their late 50s as in the "bloom of life" and considering the harshness of these women's lives, the idea that Joseph married them simply to expand his collection of blooms seems a bit stretched.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Creating a new theory for each situation is not all that helpful.

Starting out implying that Joseph engaged in polygamy for the purpose of "obtaining" young women, then adding when it was pointed out that he married older women as well (out of 33 women, 14 were 22 or younger, 15 were 30 or over) that he married older women so that they could influence the younger ones into marrying him and then altering your explanation again when it was pointed out yet again that he was marrying significantly older women (30 and older) at the same rate as the younger (younger than 30) the last year of his life (4 of each, including two women in their 50s) that he was really just interested in obtaining as many women as possible makes it appear like you really hadn't thought through your reasoning, but just made assumptions without first looking at the data, thus having to adjust them when those assumptions didn't match up. Not very impressive.

PS: I don't know what age you are, but most men I know less than 40 years of age (most of JS's plural marriages occurred in 42-43, when he was 35-37 years of age) don't think of women twenty years older in their late 50s as in the "bloom of life" and considering the harshness of these women's lives, the idea that Joseph married them simply to expand his collection of blooms seems a bit stretched.

Come on, Cal. You're messing with the apostate/critical narrative here by introducing annoying data. Plural marriage HAS TO have been all about Joseph Smith's libido. Or his quest for control over women. Or something--anything, really--unsavoury.

[Nathair/|\]

Come on, Cal. You're messing with the apostate/critical narrative here by introducing annoying data. Plural marriage HAS TO have been all about Joseph Smith's libido. Or his quest for control over women. Or something--anything, really--unsavoury.

Yeah, otherwise, he might have been exactly what he claimed to be. We can't have that, now, can we?

[Jeff K.]

It interferes with their version, facts should matter less than opinion in such cases. It is the weapon du jour against Latter-day Saints.

[Palerider]

Did you even bother to read the study? It is perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges what you are researching is fruit. You appear to have missed the point of the study.

If you told a person who was studying the differences and similarities between apples and oranges that they were limited to only comparing apples with apples, they would be thinking that your qualification pretty much defeats the purpose of the study.

If one is studying the differences and similarities of Joseph's plural marriages/sealings with the civil marriages of his community and culture, then it is rather important to include monogamous marriages in that comparison.

Calmoriah,

I have thoroughly read the study and remain unconvinced that it is valid. I have though, referred it to an aquaintance of mine who is a department head and holds a PHd in research and Family Therapy at a major University here in the west.

I'll let you know what I find out.

Meanwhile the disparaging remarks of others here regarding "showing the facts" only serve to undermine any possibility LDS may have to persuade. I feel sorry for them.

[Calm]

Calmoriah,

I have thoroughly read the study and remain unconvinced that it is valid. I have though, referred it to an aquaintance of mine who is a department head and holds a PHd in research and Family Therapy at a major University here in the west.

I'll let you know what I find out.

Please get permission to post his own comments so you won't have to paraphrase.

In the meantime I would be interested in knowing how you would construct a study in order to study the differences and similarities between JS's plural marriages to the monogamous marriages of his culture.

[Palerider]

Please get permission to post his own comments so you won't have to paraphrase.

In the meantime I would be interested in knowing how you would construct a study in order to study the differences and similarities between JS's plural marriages to the monogamous marriages of his culture.

When I hear back from him I'll try to obtain that permission.

Regarding a different study:

I think one has to control for variables.

Each relationship is a choice. This is the "WHY" question. Was the spouse chosen out of love? For societal reasons? Based on attractiveness? Because there were few other candidates available? Based on some aspect of physicality? Because they were more mature? Because they were younger?

For theories sake, lets say we're not interested in "why" they were chosen. Let's not ascribe any motivation to Joseph's judgement of "choice". That should suit you I believe.

Then we have to ask ourselves, "What is left?"........

The only thing left is the "number" of opportunities to choose. But the men you are trying to compare Joseph with, only had ONE opportunity to choose... while he had numerous opportunities. Therefore the two groups cannot be compared. And even if you wanted to factor for age, they still cannot be compared nor can you separate the age factor from the number of opportunities to choose that age!

The only way this works is if you compare the number and ages of Joseph's choices to the number and ages of choices of other polygamous marriages in U.S. society in general, which would be admittedly almost impossible because of the abnormality of plural marriage to begin with.

However that does not justify making a bad or invalid comparison with a monogamous society.

That's why your statement here is a non-starter:

"The link I posted showed that JS actually took less younger wives and more older ones than the men around him (treating each relationship as a separate issue)."

The relationship cannot be treated as a "separate issue" because Joseph is not "separate". He is "ONE". Only the "choosing" can be separated and the "men around him" didn't make anymore choices.

[Calm]

The only thing left is the "number" of opportunities to choose. But the men you are trying to compare Joseph with, only had ONE opportunity to choose... while he had numerous opportunities. Therefore the two groups cannot be compared. And even if you wanted to factor for age, they still cannot be compared nor can you separate the age factor from the number of opportunities to choose that age!...

The relationship cannot be treated as a "separate issue" because Joseph is not "separate". He is "ONE". Only the "choosing" can be separated and the "men around him" didn't make anymore choices.

You are still asking a different question than what the study was asking, though I am perfectly happy to grant that is something that should be included in any extended analysis of the issue.

Here is what is stated as the study's aim:

Rather, the question should be, "Did Joseph violate the laws of the society in which he lived?" If Joseph did not break the law, then we might go on to ask, "Did his behavior, despite not being illegal, violate the common norms of conscience or humanity?" For example, even if murder was not illegal in Illinois, if Joseph repeatedly murdered, we might well question his morality.

Note the study was performed to address just certain of the criticisms against Joseph Smith, one of which is a claim that JS was a pervert for marrying young women such as Hitchens describing him as a "serial practitioner of statutory rape". One can use the age of the wives of men who were similar in age to Joseph Smith to demonstrate that in and of itself, the age of the women was not outside the acceptable range. IOW, it was solely the polygyny that was abnormal for the culture so he might have been a pervert for marrying multiple women all at once (he could after all have married only the young women one after the other if each had died and left him a widower likely without comment except for his bad luck at losing wives), but by his society's standards the age of the women was acceptable.

The point is to isolate the sensationalized presentist claims of perversion (such as statutory rape) apart from the realistic claims of abnormality (polygyny). Your position that one can't compare his plural marriages with monogamous ones places the polygyny as the only essential characteristic of his marriages....which is, imo, an unfounded assumption.