omni Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 And I don't believe there was any sin in marrying the 14 year old - that is simply today's culture. Most estimates have Mary the mother of Christ as being about 14 when she conceived of the Lord. CFR that 38 year old men marrying 14 year old girls was part of the 19th century culture. In 1890 the average age of first marriage was 22 and most estimates put the average age of first marriage in 1840s around the same age. This is irrevelent anyways, we are constantly taught that in terms of morality we do not follow the whims of society. It is part of our modern culture to have multiple sexual partners before marriage--does that make it okay?
omni Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 It is ceratinly evident that you are unable to counter it. CFR that a 38 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl is a sin. MY GOD-GIVEN SENSE OF MORALITY--how's that for a CFR? You don't believe that all sins are described in the CHI do you? If a middlge-aged man in your ward married a 14 year old, don't you think the bishop might pull him in to his office for a little chat?
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 CFR that 38 year old men marrying 14 year old girls was part of the 19th century culture. In 1890 the average age of first marriage was 22 and most estimates put the average age of first marriage in 1840s around the same age."All are trying to get wives," Wilford Woodruff wrote to George A. Smith in 1857, "until there is hardly a girl fourteen years old in Utah but what is married or just going to be." (Mormon Polygamy pg 42) Not exactly a conclusive evidence for nationwide marrying ages, but clearly this was not an unusual circumstance in the early days of Church culture - why shouldn't that include Joseph Smith?
omni Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 "All are trying to get wives," Wilford Woodruff wrote to George A. Smith in 1857, "until there is hardly a girl fourteen years old in Utah but what is married or just going to be." (Mormon Polygamy pg 42)Not exactly a conclusive evidence for nationwide marrying ages, but clearly this was not an unusual circumstance in the early days of Church culture - why shouldn't that include Joseph Smith?Of course a culture that was created by a man who married teenage girls would find it acceptable. I could create a list of dozens of activities that are perfectly legal and accepted in our current culture but are seen as sin in the eyes of the church. The culture argument simply does not work.
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Of course a culture that was created by a man who married teenage girls would find it acceptable.I could create a list of dozens of activities that are perfectly legal and accepted in our current culture but are seen as sin in the eyes of the church. The culture argument simply does not work.There is no actual sin in marrying a 14 year old girl. You or I may not agree with the practice, but now it is my turn for a CFR. Find me any evidence that God disapproved of Joseph or anyone else marrying a 14 year old. That is just the society we live in.It was done in Joseph Smith's day, it was done in Jesus' day, it was done in Abraham and Moses day, it has only been in the last 150 years that we imposed an age of 18 on adulthood.Whether we think it is right or wrong, there is no sin in it - as I said earlier, Mary was apparently about 14 when she conceived our Saviour and God was clearly ok with that. I think you are the one arguing a cultural perspective on marital age.
Tacenda Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 There is no actual sin in marrying a 14 year old girl. You or I may not agree with the practice, but now it is my turn for a CFR. Find me any evidence that God disapproved of Joseph or anyone else marrying a 14 year old. That is just the society we live in.It was done in Joseph Smith's day, it was done in Jesus' day, it was done in Abraham and Moses day, it has only been in the last 150 years that we imposed an age of 18 on adulthood.Whether we think it is right or wrong, there is no sin in it - as I said earlier, Mary was apparently about 14 when she conceived our Saviour and God was clearly ok with that.I think you are the one arguing a cultural perspective on marital age.Well there is plenty of evidence God is against polygamy in the bible. If you require a CFR, it will take some time without my computer. But I'll do it.
omni Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 There is no actual sin in marrying a 14 year old girl. You or I may not agree with the practice, but now it is my turn for a CFR. Find me any evidence that God disapproved of Joseph or anyone else marrying a 14 year old. That is just the society we live in.It was done in Joseph Smith's day, it was done in Jesus' day, it was done in Abraham and Moses day, it has only been in the last 150 years that we imposed an age of 18 on adulthood.Whether we think it is right or wrong, there is no sin in it - as I said earlier, Mary was apparently about 14 when she conceived our Saviour and God was clearly ok with that.I think you are the one arguing a cultural perspective on marital age.I know of no modern industrial nation that finds it acceptable for middle-aged men to marry 14 year old girls. Once again I can't believe that I'm being asked to CFR this. What a world we live in where saying the word "damn" is considered a sin but middle-aged men marrying teen girls is seen as acceptable. Would you be okay if you had a teenage daughter who did the same thing?
Tacenda Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I know of no modern industrial nation that finds it acceptable for middle-aged men to marry 14 year old girls. Once again I can't believe that I'm being asked to CFR this. What a world we live in where saying the word "damn" is considered a sin but middle-aged men marrying teen girls is seen as acceptable. Would you be okay if you had a teenage daughter who did the same thing?At the age of 14 the person hasn't fully developed mentally, their personality is still evolving. Just two years earlier they were considered a child.
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I know of no modern industrial nation that finds it acceptable for middle-aged men to marry 14 year old girls. Once again I can't believe that I'm being asked to CFR this. You're not being asked to CFR that it is acceptable or not acceptable. You are being asked to CFR that it is a sin. This is a discussion of religion. Just because we don't like something or modern industrial nations don't accept it does NOT address God's feeling on the matter. In light of this thread and the complaints against Joseph Smith, that is why you are being asked to CFR it. God doesn't disapprove, even if the human race does - that is the point of this side thread. You say Joseph sinned, I say show me where it's labelled a sin by the Lord.
ksfisher Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 One of my great grandmothers married at age 15 around 1910 in Indiana. Not LDS. No shotguns at the wedding either.
jkwilliams Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Generally speaking, 14 year old girls weren't often told that their family's exaltation depended on accepting proposals of marriage from 36 year old married men. Or was this a common practice that doesn't get a lot of attention? 2
CV75 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 MY GOD-GIVEN SENSE OF MORALITY--how's that for a CFR? You don't believe that all sins are described in the CHI do you? If a middlge-aged man in your ward married a 14 year old, don't you think the bishop might pull him in to his office for a little chat?That doesn't count as a CFR, so you have retracted your statement and replaced it with an opinion. In the context of policy, a sin (reasons for disciplanry councils, for example) would be referenced in the CHI. In the context of doctrine, they are referenced in the scriptures. Your sense of morality doesn't really count for anyone but yourself. So when you turn 14, don't marry a 38-year old man! RE: a middlge-aged man in my ward marrying a 14 year old: odd, yes (but not unprecedented in my lifetime); illegal (no); a policy issue (no, not as long as, as has been pointed out already, everything was on the up-and-up); a sin (no, likewise). The dynamics lleading up to the marriage might spur the Bishop's interest in exploring the possibility of sin (in this case, sex outside of marriage), but that is not the same as concluding that sin has taken place. Also it might spur his interest in giving his two cents about the wisdom of such an arrangement, but that also has nothing to do with sin.
CV75 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Once again the disenchanted must resort to apples and oranges to undermine the message of an LDS Church leader.
jkwilliams Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Once again the disenchanted must resort to apples and oranges to undermine the message of an LDS Church leader. I'm not sure what you are referring to, so clarification would help.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 One of my great grandmothers married at age 15 around 1910 in Indiana. Not LDS. No shotguns at the wedding either.You're kidding! Shocking, I say! Just shocking!
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 There's a whole lot of presentism going on in this thread. For one thing, I understand that the concept of adolescence is a fairly recent innovation in terms of world history. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) At the age of 14 the person hasn't fully developed mentally, their personality is still evolving. Just two years earlier they were considered a child.Accepting your contention as sound for the sake of discussion, you're superimposing a 21st-century norm onto 19th-century occurrences. And which is more, you're doing it with the benefit of information that has been developed in the interim. We should judge people according to the norms and mores of their time, not ours. P.S.: I knew a girl in college who was, like, "17 going on 30." She had graduated from high school at the ripe old age of 15, and I believe she got her Associate degree the same year I did. (I was six years her senior. ) She got sealed in the Temple to a nice, 21-year-old recently returned missionary. I have no reason to suspect that their relationship was not then, and is not now, anything but the epitome of familial bliss. Not all teenagers are created equal. Edited October 10, 2013 by Kenngo1969
jkwilliams Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 There's a whole lot of presentism going on in this thread. For one thing, I understand that the concept of adolescence is a fairly recent innovation in terms of world history. Presentism would apply if the situation in question were an accepted social practice in the 1840s. Given that I've never heard of anyone else in that situation (unless you count Sarah Ann Whitney), I don't believe the charge of presentism works.
teddyaware Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) This talk is a gift to the enemies and critics of the church that will serve them well for years to come. People no longer need to go back decades to find a church leader officially making disparaging and offensive remarks about a certain class of people. Phaedrus Prophets, and their inspired declarations, always have been and always will be unpopular with those who live as natural men. The words of the prophets, spoken out of love and concern for the Lord's earthly children, always have a been and always will be misconstrued by the spiritually blind and unenlightened as cruel, harsh and offensive. This refusal to believe and pay heed to the solemn warnings of the living prophets is why nations who fully ripened in iniquity always end up slaying the Lord's duly authorized messengers just before they are swept off. And this is exactly what the adversary attempted to do in the war in heaven, dethrone God and destroy Him for he couldn't stand to hear the truth. Truth hurts, and it always will hurt until the natural man within is fully subdued. "Wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." 1 Nephi 16:2 Edited October 10, 2013 by teddyaware
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Presentism would apply if the situation in question were an accepted social practice in the 1840s. Given that I've never heard of anyone else in that situation (unless you count Sarah Ann Whitney), I don't believe the charge of presentism works. And if jkwiliams has never heard of it, it must mean it never happened.
Garden Girl Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) As far as the current expressions of disapproval of Joseph Smith marrying a 14 year old... I have to say yet again, we have to consider the context of the times...One of the most celebrated romances in the history of early California... about the same time as Joseph in the east... was between my Castillian Spanish Great-gr-gr-Aunt Concepcion Arguello and Rosanov, the Chamberlain to the Russian Tsar... "Concha" had just turned 15 and has been described in books, poems, and by historians as being the most beautiful woman in Alta, California, when the dashing 42 year-old Resanov sailed his ship, the Juno, into San Francisco Bay to try to get supplies for his struggling Russian settlement near Sitka... While staying at the Arguello home at the San Francisco Presidio, where my Great-gr-gr-gr-Grandfather (Concha's father) was Commandante, the Russian and Concha fell in love and were set to be married. While traveling across Russia to get permission of the Tsar for the marriage (Letters had also been sent to the Pope by the Arguellos), Resanov was killed... it was years before Concha knew of his fate but she waited patiently for him, finally becoming a nun... serving others faithfully... she was nicknamed "the Little Angel." Her story is treated as a tragic romance...Now think of it... on the west coast a 15 year old girl is set to marry a 42 year old man and they hold it up as a romantic note of the colorful old California Spanish mission days...while at the same time in the east Joseph married a 14 year old girl and today we pillory him. GG edit to add: I understand there is a move by a historical society to have a movie made of Concha and Resanov's story... Edited October 10, 2013 by Garden Girl 1
JLHPROF Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Presentism would apply if the situation in question were an accepted social practice in the 1840s. Given that I've never heard of anyone else in that situation (unless you count Sarah Ann Whitney), I don't believe the charge of presentism works. I already provide a quote that showed the entire state of Utah in 1852 frequently married as young as 14.And again, who cares what the accepted social practice was then or now. I only care for the purposes of this thread if these young marriages of Joseph and others were considered sins by the Lord, and I have never seen a single reference to that effect. Besides, with parental consent, marriage at 14 is still legal in 5 states - http://globaljusticeinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/united-states-age-of-consent-table11.pdf so not only was it not a sin, it's not even illegal in all 50 states. I wonder how the bishop of a ward in those states would handle a 14 year married member... Edited October 10, 2013 by JLHPROF 1
rockpond Posted October 10, 2013 Author Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Prophets, and their inspired declarations, always have been and always will be unpopular with those who live as natural men. The words of the prophets, spoken out of love and concern for the Lord's earthly children, always have a been and always will be misconstrued by the spiritually blind and unenlightened as cruel, harsh and offensive. This refusal to believe and pay heed to the solemn warnings of the living prophets is why nations who fully ripened in iniquity always end up slaying the Lord's duly authorized messengers just before they are swept off. And this is exactly what the adversary attempted to do in the war in heaven, dethrone God and destroy Him for he couldn't stand to hear the truth. Truth hurts, and it always will hurt until the natural man within is fully subdued. "Wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center." 1 Nephi 16:2 This absolutist approach strikes me as inappropriate given that a member of the first presidency said, in the very same conference, that leaders do make mistakes and that there "may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine." I definitely believe we should listen to and study their counsel. I'm doing that and reviewing each of their conference addresses. But we shouldn't use their words to suggest that those who don't completely agree are "spiritually blind and unenlightened". Edited October 10, 2013 by rockpond
omni Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) You're not being asked to CFR that it is acceptable or not acceptable. You are being asked to CFR that it is a sin. This is a discussion of religion.Just because we don't like something or modern industrial nations don't accept it does NOT address God's feeling on the matter. In light of this thread and the complaints against Joseph Smith, that is why you are being asked to CFR it. God doesn't disapprove, even if the human race does - that is the point of this side thread. You say Joseph sinned, I say show me where it's labelled a sin by the Lord.Did a check on state laws for marriage consent and only New Hampshire and New York allow 14 year olds to marry and only if given special permission from the state--which I think would be highly unlikely on the case of a 14 year old and a middle-aged man. According to A of F #12, we believe in obeying the laws of the land. Disobeying them would then be considered a sin.Since we're getting technical with the CFRs, then in no way does your quote about a relatively small isolated group of people indicate that the American culture at large was accepting of these types of relationships.Edit: I see in your other post you mentioned five states, maybe I missed some. Edited October 10, 2013 by omni
omni Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 That doesn't count as a CFR, so you have retracted your statement and replaced it with an opinion. In the context of policy, a sin (reasons for disciplanry councils, for example) would be referenced in the CHI. In the context of doctrine, they are referenced in the scriptures. Your sense of morality doesn't really count for anyone but yourself. So when you turn 14, don't marry a 38-year old man!RE: a middlge-aged man in my ward marrying a 14 year old: odd, yes (but not unprecedented in my lifetime); illegal (no); a policy issue (no, not as long as, as has been pointed out already, everything was on the up-and-up); a sin (no, likewise). The dynamics lleading up to the marriage might spur the Bishop's interest in exploring the possibility of sin (in this case, sex outside of marriage), but that is not the same as concluding that sin has taken place. Also it might spur his interest in giving his two cents about the wisdom of such an arrangement, but that also has nothing to do with sin.See above post to the professor.
Recommended Posts