HappyJackWagon Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Please define adult, that is not a definition. and define Marriage also. Joseph Smith did not live with 14 year old Helen, No Sex, No romance, No legal document, sounds more like a religious ceremony. Let's try this definition of marriage. Marriagea (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage And this for adult Adult1: fully developed and mature : grown-up 2: of, relating to, intended for, or befitting adults <an adult approach to a problem> By your description of the relationship it doesn't sound like a marriage at all. It wasn't legal. She wasn't a consenting adult. They didn't live together or have sexual relations (This can be argued). Coerce1: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge> 2: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing> 3: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
JLHPROF Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Yikes. What's your source on that. I was looking but didn't find anything that specific. http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230?section=primarysources&source=24 Both Fanny @16 in Ohio and Helen @ 14 in Illinois were well over the age of consent in the area, and according to record of the Nauvoo Temple in 1846 Helen was not the only 14 year old bride in Nauvoo with a much older husband. (Don't have access to that right now).
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Let's try this definition of marriage.And this for adult By your description of the relationship it doesn't sound like a marriage at all. It wasn't legal. She wasn't a consenting adult. They didn't live together or have sexual relations (This can be argued). "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" Again, no sex, no court documents or marriage license, not living together, sounds more like just a religious ceremony. Using your definition, it was not a marriage because it was not recognized by the law. So Joseph Smith did not marry Helen under your definition. You took the bait "Adult 1 : fully developed and mature :"Are all 18 year olds fully developed and mature? What about some 17 or 16 year olds?How do you define fully "developed" and "mature" ? "(This can be argued)."Without evidence it is only speculation and wishful thinking. Edited October 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
cinepro Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Just to be clear...are you arguing for this or not? I'm not. I was just throwing it out there in case anyone felt some cognitive dissonance over the scriptures saying that Joseph had to tell Emma first and the possibility that she didn't know about Fanny or other early polygamous marriages.
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 CFR. No you CRF, the burden of proof falls on you.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) No you CRF, the burden of proof falls on you. I'm not claiming she had sex or didn't. You however did. If you can't provide a reference, I respectfully request that you reword your statement or retract it per the board guidelines. Edited October 30, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Let's try this definition of marriage.And this for adult By your description of the relationship it doesn't sound like a marriage at all. It wasn't legal. She wasn't a consenting adult. They didn't live together or have sexual relations (This can be argued). "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" Again, no sex, no court documents or marriage license, not living together, sounds more like just a religious ceremony. Using your definition, it was not a marriage because it was not recognized by the law. So Joseph Smith did not marry Helen under your definition. You took the bait You have to be careful with your definitions "Adult 1 : fully developed and mature :"Are all 18 year olds fully developed and mature? What about some 17 or 16 year olds?How do you define fully "developed" and "mature" ? "(This can be argued)."Without evidence it is only speculation and wishful thinking. Edited October 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I'm not claiming she had sex or didn't. You however did. If you can't provide a reference, I respectfully request that you reword your statement or retract it per the board guidelines. Todd M. Compton, Response to Tanners Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981), 98. Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 404–405. Your welcome Edited October 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
pogi Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Without evidence it is only speculation and wishful thinking. True statement. Now, you should take a moment and consider what you wrote. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Todd M. Compton, Response to Tanners Stanley B. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981), 98. Brian C. Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Greg Kofford Books, 2013), 404–405. Your welcome Todd Compton views sexuality in the case of Helen Mar to be ambiguous. Brian Hales concludes "The lack of evidence does not prove the lack of sexual relations, but several observations support that Helen’s marriage to Joseph Smith was not consummated." The best we can say is that Helen's marriage likely did not include sexual relations, though determining this would be impossible. I will add that an eternity only sealing goes against the requirement to raise up seed to the Lord and contradicts the church's essay when it states: He may have believed that sealings to married women would comply with the Lord’s command without requiring him to have normal marriage relationships.33 This could explain why, according to Lorenzo Snow, the angel reprimanded Joseph for having “demurred” on plural marriage even after he had entered into the practice.34 After this rebuke, according to this interpretation, Joseph returned primarily to sealings with single women. To flat out say that there was no sex goes beyond what the evidence allows for. 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Todd Compton views sexuality in the case of Helen Mar to be ambiguous. Brian Hales concludes "The lack of evidence does not prove the lack of sexual relations, but several observations support that Helen’s marriage to Joseph Smith was not consummated." You cannot prove a negative in History, the burden of proof falls on you. I agree that several observations support that Helen’s marriage to Joseph Smith was not consummated, so the best theory is that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen. Edited October 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
WysteriaBlue Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 For Cinepro and Calmoriah:In response to your call for reference about Emma's expectations or knowledge of other earlier marriages: ",,,the rumors of plural marriage in Nauvoo; and doubts existed in the minds ofsome of Joseph's trusted leaders.24 Any or all of these things may have impelledSmith to seek further light on the subject. But a very probable stimulant for thequestion may have involved the Prophet's own domestic difficulties. In versesfifty-one to fifty-six, Emma Smith is commanded to accept those women that herhusband has already married. She is also told to cleave unto him and "none else"and to forgive him his trespasses against her. Given the fact that Emma was neverreconciled to the matter of plural marriage, is it possible that accusations ofadultery came from her? According to William Clayton there was considerabletension in the Smith home at the time of the recording of Section 132. Hereported in his journal that Joseph told him when Emma came back from St.Louis in the spring of that year that she rejected the principle of plural marriagetotally and threatened to divorce him if he did not give it up." http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol5/iss1/1/
HappyJackWagon Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" Again, no sex, no court documents or marriage license, not living together, sounds more like just a religious ceremony. Using your definition, it was not a marriage because it was not recognized by the law. So Joseph Smith did not marry Helen under your definition. You took the bait You have to be careful with your definitions "Adult 1 : fully developed and mature :"Are all 18 year olds fully developed and mature? What about some 17 or 16 year olds?How do you define fully "developed" and "mature" ? "(This can be argued)."Without evidence it is only speculation and wishful thinking. No. My point is that all of the "plural mariages" were shams, approved by the priesthood authority, Joseph Smith, for his own purposes. There were no real marriages. They were spiritual marriages just like the ones performed in the FLDS tradition. Joseph didn't live with his plural wives (except for the live-in help and adopted daughters he messed around with married). He did have relations with many of them (can't verify all one way or the other). I wonder where Bennett got his idea for spiritual wifery. JS and Bennett seemed to be playing the same game. 1
pogi Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I agree that several observations support that Helen’s marriage to Joseph Smith was not consummated, so the best theory is that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen. Now that is a little better - not so definitive (but still biased). However, it just as speculative to say that he did not have sex with her as it is to say that he did have sex with her. It is all "wishful thinking." Edited October 30, 2014 by pogi
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) You cannot prove a negative in History, the burden of proof falls on you. I agree that several observations support that Helen’s marriage to Joseph Smith was not consummated, so the best theory is that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen. In a marriage, consummation is assumed. Indeed, we have an angel of God upset at Joseph as he is not having "normal marriage relationships". The justification for plural marriage given in scripture and by the church is to raise seed. With Helen Mar we have some ambiguous statements that can be interpreted to mean that the marriage is not consummated. That's the best we can say. If we say without caveat that their was no sex we go beyond what the historical record supports. Edited October 30, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 No. My point is that all of the "plural mariages" were shams, approved by the priesthood authority, Joseph Smith, for his own purposes. There were no real marriages. Okay, and my point was that there are no good secular arguments against plural marriage practiced by adults that agree. I was replying to rockpond in post 349.
omni Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 So the Law of Sarah requires the husband to get the approval of his first wife prior to a second marriage but if she doesn't approve he can ignore the disapproval and do it anyway. And if you're pretty sure the first wife won't like it...just don't mention it. These kinds of rules make it appear that JS was just a philanderer trying to cover his infidelity. It's very self serving and dishonest. Emma didn't know about many of his wives and the ones she did were mostly after the fact. Can you imagine the hell it would be for Emma to constantly be finding out about JS's affairs after the fact, and then being chastised for not accepting them as legitimate plural marriages. It's absurd. Anyone trying that today would be excommunicated and divorced in a heartbeat...as they should. Whoa, there! Have you even read D&C 132? If I may... And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide andcleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law…. And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. Does that sound like the writings of a man in 1840s "trying to cover his infidelities"? Clearly this is revelation from an infinitely loving and just God.
MormonFreeThinker Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 In a marriage, consummation is assumed. It was not a marriage according to HappyJackWagon, and there is evidence that JS did have sex with some of his wives, but no evidence with Helen. So the best assumption is that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 So the best assumption is that Joseph Smith did not have sex with Helen. Thank you for rephrasing!
EllenMaksoud Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 The law of Sarah is not the law of consent. The law of Sarah is that if your wife does not give her consent, you are then free to proceed without it.In Islamic law, the husband is supposed to ask first wife, and if he says no he can not. Most do it anyhow, or just divorce her and then do it.
EllenMaksoud Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 I've got to say...bless the leaders & scholarly historians for putting up the essay. I can no longer be thought of as believing only anti stuff if my FC were ever to become known to the rest of my very TBM in laws. I now have a place to point them. It's just that I'd be instructed to go by an even bigger faith from here on out.But I've been waiting for this day for years. Not to shove it in people's faces, I won't, but it's my get out of jail free card, it's my alibi, it's my insane free diagnosis, it's my get out of Twilight Zone nightmare card...need I go on? So grateful for this new day. ETA: I hope Scott will help facilitate this being reported by the Deseret News as well! Because the truth is useful! Edit again: DN article...good one!! I just do not understand the obsession with this.
WysteriaBlue Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Did he "need" to consummate the marriages of the already married women he also plurally married?Did he "need" to consummate the union/marriage with Fanny (which was witnessed in the barn, and she miscarried his baby)....and she did not divorce him before marrying another man in the next state? And what about Nancy in Nauvoo?"The first is the possibilitythat the "whisperings" mentioned by Olney may have been in part responsiblefor the March 1832 mobbing incident where Smith and Rigdon were tarred andfeathered. Luke Johnson, brother of a participant that evening, said that therabble came with the intention of emasculating Smith because of supposedintimacies between him and Luke's sister, Nancy. She later became the wife ofOrson Hyde and a plural wife of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.43 The second piece ofevidence is the strong likelihood that Joseph Smith married his first plural wifein the late Kirtland period; a circumstance which apparently led to an importantdisruption in the relationship between Oliver Cowdery and the Prophet in1838"http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol5/iss1/1/ Just CFR information.....
JLHPROF Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Did he "need" to consummate the marriages of the already married women he also plurally married?Did he "need" to consummate the union/marriage with Fanny (which was witnessed in the barn, and she miscarried his baby)....and she did not divorce him before marrying another man in the next state? And what about Nancy in Nauvoo?"The first is the possibilitythat the "whisperings" mentioned by Olney may have been in part responsiblefor the March 1832 mobbing incident where Smith and Rigdon were tarred andfeathered. Luke Johnson, brother of a participant that evening, said that therabble came with the intention of emasculating Smith because of supposedintimacies between him and Luke's sister, Nancy. She later became the wife ofOrson Hyde and a plural wife of Joseph Smith in Nauvoo.43 The second piece ofevidence is the strong likelihood that Joseph Smith married his first plural wifein the late Kirtland period; a circumstance which apparently led to an importantdisruption in the relationship between Oliver Cowdery and the Prophet in1838"http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mormonhistory/vol5/iss1/1/ Just CFR information..... Oh, not that old fairytale again. This has been disproved by so many historians as without evidence.For example: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/changes-in-may-1843/ The fourth accusation regarding Joseph Smith involved Marinda Nancy Johnson, born June 28, 1815, the daughter of John and Elsa Johnson of Hiram, Ohio. Joseph and Emma lived at the Johnson home during two separated periods, from September 1831 to April 1832 and again from July to September 1832. Joseph had healed her mother of a disability that prevented her from using her arm, and most of the family had joined the Church in 1831. Two of her brothers, Lyman and Luke, were among the first Twelve Apostles chosen in 1835, though both later became disaffected. Luke re-affiliated with Mormonism but Lyman did not.Marinda’s brother Luke, wrote an account of the mobbing, which was published in 1864:In the fall of [sic, should be spring of 1832], while Joseph was yet at my father’s [John Johnson], a mob of forty or fifty came to his house, a few entered his room in the middle of the night, and Carnot Mason dragged Joseph out of bed by the hair of his head; he was then seized by as many as could get hold of him, and taken about forty rods from the house, stretched on a board, and tantalized in the most insulting and brutal manner; they tore off the few night clothes that he had on, for the purpose of emasculating him, and had Dr. Dennison there to perform the operation; but when the Dr. saw the Prophet stripped and stretched on the plank, his heart failed him, and he refused to operate.”28Luke’s account does not attribute the intent to emasculate Joseph to sexual impropriety on his part, but Fawn Brodie retells the story, casting it as hearsay, “It is said that Eli Johnson demanded that the prophet be castrated, for he suspected Joseph of being too intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda.”30 In fact, Eli was Marinda’s uncle (her father’s brother), not one of her own brothers. Furthermore, Brodie was quoting Clark Braden, a Church of Christ (Disciples) minister, who made the allegation of immorality in an 1884 debate with E. L. Kelley, counselor in the Presiding Bishopric of the RLDS Church.31 From my research, Braden seems to have been the very first person to assert sexual impropriety as a motive for the mob. The accusation was not included in any publication printed during the fifty-two years prior to Braden’s 1884 debate with Kelley, even though many reported the tarring and feathering episode.For example, in their 1861 publication, A Journey to Great Salt Lake City, Jules Remy and Julius Brenchley fail to accuse Joseph Smith of any sexual impropriety when discussing the 1832 mobbing.32 Antagonistic author John H. Beadle accuses Joseph Smith of “attempting to establish communism, . . . forgery and dishonorable dealing.”33 If immoral conduct were involved, reticence about it on Beadle’s part would have been most uncharacteristic of his typically sensational approach.Accordingly, it seems improbable that Braden in 1884 had discovered evidence of a motivation unknown for more than fifty-two years. Most likely, he simply read the account, which was available in LDS and RLDS publications, and assumed that since emasculation was mentioned, at least some of Joseph Smith’s offenses were sexual in nature. If Braden had evidence beyond his own assumptions, he never shared it with anyone. Neither has any supporting documentation since been identified in the historical record. Importantly, Symonds Ryder, one of the mob leaders later wrote:When they [Joseph Smith and other leaders] went to Missouri to lay the foundation of the splendid city of Zion, and also of the temple, they left their papers behind [in Hiram, Ohio]. This gave their new converts an opportunity to become acquainted with the internal arrangement of their church, which revealed to them the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Joseph Smith the prophet [through the law of consecration]. This was too much for the Hiramites. . . . Determined not to let it pass with impunity; and, accordingly, a company was formed of citizens . . . in March, 1832, and proceeded to headquarters in the darkness of night, and took Smith and Rigdon from their beds, and tarred and feathered them both, and let them go. This had the desired effect, which was to get rid of them. They soon left for Kirtland.”34Todd Compton, who has done the most extensive research on Joseph Smith’s plural wives, comments: “There is no good evidence supporting the position (found in Brodie . . . ) that Joseph Smith was married to Marinda Johnson . . . or had an affair with her, in 1831, and was mobbed by ‘her brother Eli’ and others as a result.”35 Marinda herself recalled in 1877 at age sixty-two after a lifetime of faithful membership: “I feel like bearing my testimony that during the whole year that Joseph was an inmate of my father’s house I never saw aught in his daily life or conversation to make me doubt his divine mission.”36 Edited October 30, 2014 by JLHPROF 1
Calm Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 I'm not. I was just throwing it out there in case anyone felt some cognitive dissonance over the scriptures saying that Joseph had to tell Emma first and the possibility that she didn't know about Fanny or other early polygamous marriages.Always looking out for the other guy, so very kind. 1
Recommended Posts