Elder Oaks' Oct 2013 Gen Con Address

[Calm]

 

“my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away...I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [William] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fettered me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did...and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself  an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.”

 

Sounds to me more like a typical 14 year old girl wanting to be out playing and dancing with her friends rather than stuck in a marriage with someone she rarely saw.

 

Nice use of ellipses there....note her brother only got out of the same restriction due to some deception apparently and yet there is no indication that William was married at the time....

 

Sounds to me more like a typical 15 year old girl (it was after Christmas that she was forbidden to go the "blacklegs" dances, her birthday was in August, the sealing had been in June) ticked off she couldn't go to a party where there was going to be drinking or not enough adult supervision, to use modern examples of parents laying down the law....

 

The full quote:

 

 

 

During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter was on Christmas Eve. Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties to be held at the mansion once a week. My brother William put his name down before asking father's permission, and when questioned about it made him believe that he must pay the money for himself and the lady, whether he went or not, and that he could not honorably withdraw from it. He carried the day, but I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow him to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull and like a wild bird, I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them.

A moral may be drawn from this truthful story. "Children obey thy parents," etc. And also, "Have regard to thy name, for that shall continue with you above a thousand great treasures of gold." "A good life hath but few days; but a good name endureth forever."

 

 

 

 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

Edited October 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

It doesn't much matter what she did years later. She recognized at the time that she was purchasing a great reward by marrying Joseph, and I will never believe that a 14 year old whose father and a prophet of God want her to do something is in a position to make an informed and free choice. This doesn't bother some people, but it bothers me. Even if I believed the church was true, it would still be troubling to me.

 

It bothers you, but it did not bother her; could it be that you are applying your own sensibilities without any regard for another's?  I understand that it is a problem for you personally, but when the individuals involved have no problem with it, does that mean that they just don't know better? Or possibly does it mean that you don't have the same understanding that the participants had?  

 

In some circumstances it could be said that a similar attitude is paternalistic or even elitist; those poor ignorant souls don't know better, but "I" do and thought they were not offended they should have been. This seems like it could also be a situation where one is looking to be offended.  Seems like there are a host of different ways to interpret this; which one brings you peace and allows God to have a hand in it? 

[Tacenda]

It doesn't much matter what she did years later. She recognized at the time that she was purchasing a great reward by marrying Joseph, and I will never believe that a 14 year old whose father and a prophet of God want her to do something is in a position to make an informed and free choice. This doesn't bother some people, but it bothers me. Even if I believed the church was true, it would still be troubling to me.

Same here, and for her to have even mentioned she felt like a lamb on an altar, tells me something. In a post awhile back I mention something to the affect that women who don't want to live it, but do anyway would be like a lamb on the altar, then I read Helen's quote, weird. Maybe I read that a long time ago and it stuck, because I never thought of it when I said it in that quote.

If polygamy was only to raise seed, then she would be awfully young. Poor choice for a wife, when you can't live with her. Maybe JS had his reasons, he may have been testing his good friend. Like he did Sydney Rigdon when he asked for Nancy, his daughter. And when he asked for Kimball's wife.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[CV75]

The first quote has to do with special skills and knowledge given, age is not generally considered a benefit. Age also does not confer authority

Age is not generally considered a benefit? Ever? In anything? Ho-ho-ho! How long do you have before Mediacre? Or AARP discounts? How long has it been since you could buy tobacco and booze with your own ID card, or vote? And do you deny that you could not make friends and influence people by virtue of your age in doing things they cannot by virtue of their age?

 

But in both cases, the advantage (“benefits”) and authority (I’ll say it again!) are generally speaking and most commonly accepted in sexual and marital relationships as being associated with a 38-year-old taking sinful advantage over a 14-year old. It is also an advantage for righteous mentoring and protection as well.

 

A couple of hastily-searched links will show how these principles are applied in Church policy.

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/content/english/pdf/service/aaronic-priesthood/scouting/youth-protection-notice.pdf?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/callings/aaronic-priesthood/leader-resources/scouting/safety?lang=eng

 

You obviously understand the application of these principles in marriage and consent law with regards to age of the participants, since my regference on that worked for you (more links below, also hastily searched):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_marriage

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

Edited October 11, 2013 by CV75

[Calm]

if polygamy was only to raise seed, then she would be awfully young. Poor choice for a wife, when you can't live with her. Maybe JS had his reasons, he may have been testing his good friend. Like he did Sydney Rigdon when he asked for Nancy, his daughter. And when he asked for Kimball's wife.

It is very clear in Helen's case, imo, why the sealing took place.  It was her father's idea for the purpose of connecting the two families, it is often called a "dynastic" sealing, such as in this case:

 

Interestingly, Joseph's youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball, was the daughter of another loyal apostle, Heber C. Kimball, so that marriage may also be considered dynastic, not motivated solely by sexual interest. (In Sacred Loneliness, 12) Some conclude that Helen Mar Kimball, who married Smith when she was fourteen, did not have marital relations with him. This is possible, as there are cases of Mormons in Utah marrying young girls and refraining from sexuality until they were older. But the evidence for Helen Mar is entirely ambiguous, in my view. (In Sacred Loneliness, 14) Orson Whitney wrote, "Soon after the revelation [to Vilate] was given, a golden link was forged whereby the house of Heber and Joseph were indissolubly and forever joined. Helen Mar. . . was given to the Prophet in the holy bonds of celestial marriage." This marriage, like that of Smith to Sarah Whitney, looks to be almost purely dynastic, as Whitney's language ("golden link" "the houses of Heber and Joseph") shows. (In Sacred Loneliness, 497)

 

My position, actually, is that there is no evidence, pro or con, for sexual relations. You cannot prove that there were sexual relations; you cannot prove that there were no sexual relations. Notice that I do not simply say "ambiguous"; I say "entirely ambiguous."

But, the reader may ask, what is my best guess? I remember talking with my publisher Gary Bergera on the phone once during the editorial process and I restated the cautious "no evidence either way" position. But Gary pressed: "But what do you think? What is your best guess?" And I answered that my best guess was that there were no sexual relations, based on parallels from some marriages to underage women in Utah polygamy.

 

http://toddmcompton.com/revhmk5.html

Edited October 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

I will never believe that a 14 year old whose father and a prophet of God want her to do something is in a position to make an informed and free choice.

But we see 14-year-olds making informed choices all the time, both in accordance with and against what a prophet and parents want and have taught them. Some are just "quick to observe" and wiser than others.

[california boy]

I'm one who countered your post, and I never said he was being coy or imprudent or evasive. In fact, I contradicted those very descriptors. And mine wasn't an effort to excuse his answer; it was reasoned analysis derived by reading for comprehension.

 

Reading for comprehension, one realizes that the portion he was referring to that he said we don't teach or emphasize is the first part: that "as man is, God once was."

 

And he was absolutely right. You seemed determined to ignore my post wherein I said that while we acknowledge it, we don't teach it in the sense of giving lessons or sermons or publishing articles about it, for the simple reason that we don't know enough about it to dwell on it.

 

What you are insinuating is deception and evasion was in reality a careful effort to be accurate in an off-the-cuff and wide-ranging interview before a largely uncomprehending public. And yes, I do see it as disrespectful to President Hinckley.

I wasn't referring to you characterizing President Hinckley's comments as being coy or evasive.  It was the explanation that others had offered.

 

President Hinckley's response was for a question about the entire couplet.  An honest response would have been that we don't know much about how God became God and we don't teach much about that.  But we do affirm that yes, man can become like God and that this earth life is a part of the refining journey.  But to say that the church does not teach that exact couplet from President Snow was just not true.  

 

Look I understand your need and other's needs to try and give such an explanation about President Hinckley's response.  The fact that you have to find some shred of logic to cling to to explain his answer is evidence of President Hinckley not being forthright about his answer.  If that works for you, then fine, but obviously there are some that this kind of explaining away his answer does not work.  Since like I stated earlier, every member of the church knew that indeed the church has taught for years that very couplet that Larry King asked about.

[Calm]

President Hinckley's response was for a question about the entire couplet.  

 

 

 

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet. A: Yeah. Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse#endnote_snow1

Edited October 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[CV75]

Look I understand your need and other's needs to try and give such an explanation about President Hinckley's response.  The fact that you have to find some shred of logic to cling to to explain his answer is evidence of President Hinckley not being forthright about his answer.  If that works for you, then fine, but obviously there are some that this kind of explaining away his answer does not work.  Since like I stated earlier, every member of the church knew that indeed the church has taught for years that very couplet that Larry King asked about.

Look I understand your need and other's needs to refute the apologetic explanations about President Hinckley's response. The fact that you have to ignore the text to justify your own position is evidence that you are not being forthright. If that works for you, then fine, but obviously there are some for whom this kind of prejudice does not work.

[california boy]

Look I understand your need and other's needs to refute the apologetic explanations about President Hinckley's response. The fact that you have to ignore the text to justify your own position is evidence that you are not being forthright. If that works for you, then fine, but obviously there are some for whom this kind of prejudice does not work.

Actually I was under the impression that the whole couplet was quoted.  So thainks for your clairification.  That does change things for me a bit.

[Calm]

Actually I was under the impression that the whole couplet was quoted.  So thainks for your clairification.  That does change things for me a bit.

Out of points so  

 

I apologize for assuming you had been exposed to the question already due to the many times discussed on the board before where I and others have posted the question and for whatever reason you still saw it was all the couplet (I didn't think you were lying, just being stubborn ).

[CV75]

Actually I was under the impression that the whole couplet was quoted.  So thainks for your clairification.  That does change things for me a bit.

So even with clarification correcting your faulty assumption for justifying your stance, you still refute the very apologetic explanations which follow the actual text.

[omni]

 

Nice use of ellipses there....note her brother only got out of the same restriction due to some deception apparently and yet there is no indication that William was married at the time....

 

Sounds to me more like a typical 15 year old girl (it was after Christmas that she was forbidden to go the "blacklegs" dances, her birthday was in August, the sealing had been in June) ticked off she couldn't go to a party where there was going to be drinking or not enough adult supervision, to use modern examples of parents laying down the law....

 

The full quote:

 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

 

 

The website (which I don't believe is anti-Mormon) I quoted from only included what I posted so it was not my intent to mislead.  I agree the full quote does add more context to that particular instance.

[Calm]

If it was the wives of Joseph Smith website, in the examples I looked at, he went out of his way (use of ellipses, changing order of what was said, combining from different documents) to present the quotes in such a way as to make plural marriage look bad.  Nor was I impressed by how he presented his references, but that could just be poor technique, not intentionally making it harder for people to check the original sources.  He may not be anti-mormon, but he is definitely anti-plural marriage.

 

The only thing I think his site has any value for is to take his quotes to 'google' for original sources.

Edited October 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

If it was the wives of Joseph Smith website, in the examples I looked at, he went out of his way (use of ellipses, changing order of what was said, combining from different documents) to present the quotes in such a way as to make plural marriage look bad. Nor was I impressed by how he presented his references, but that could just be poor technique, not intentionally making it harder for people to check the original sources. He may not be anti-mormon, but he is definitely anti-plural marriage.

The only thing I think his site has any value for is to take his quotes to 'google' for original sources.

That particular website found by accident, popped up out of nowhere on the internet, is what started me on my faith crisis. Who knows, if I'd never seen that, I might be a well adjusted, card carrying TBM right now. Oh, but maybe I'd a very unhappy mama since my second son chose not to go on a mission and two daughters are inactive. So I guess it works both ways.

[Hestia]

This topic has veered off course. Move on.