Evidence For An 1831 Date For Section 132?

[rockpond]

 

The definition of "whoredom" per the 1828 dictionary includes lewdness and fornication.  Could lewdness include marrying a 14 year old who is 23 years your junior?  Using spiritual authority to pressure a young girl to marry you?

 

The age argument?  Not in 1800s America (as I've shown SO many times with sources).  And the coercion argument?  Debatable.

 

>>> So cultural norms dictate morality.  Got it.

 

"Stealing wives" -- Could that include sending men on missions and then marrying their wives?

 

Records show that happened once, with a possible second where the man was already on a mission not sent (yet it is exaggerated to appear as many  men all the time).  And the husband stayed faithful the whole time.

 

>>> My point is that it happened.  The husband's faithfulness is not relevant.

 

"Abusing wives" -- Does that include lying to them?

 

I would think it could.   But if you refer to Emma, she knew of plural marriage.  She sustained Joseph in plural marriage.  She performed the law of Sarah with at least 4 wives.  And she then rejected and fought plural marriage.  He would have told her of every marriage had she not fought the keeping of God's law.  But pearls before swine.

 

>>> Oh good, four of the 32-33 wives were approved by Emma.  Did Joseph tell her before he began the practice?  Did he or did he not lie to her?  And comparing Emma to swine.  Nice.

 

You don't have to respond to the above questions.  I'm not really interested in further debate.  I mostly wanted to demonstrate to you why I continue to believe that Joseph's practice of polygamy was in error.  I don't find any of your responses (the "it was legal" argument, he only stole one wife, and he didn't lie ALL of the time) very compelling.  Sorry.

 

 

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The definition of "whoredom" per the 1828 dictionary includes lewdness and fornication.  Could lewdness include marrying a 14 year old who is 23 years your junior?  Using spiritual authority to pressure a young girl to marry you?

 

"Stealing wives" -- Could that include sending men on missions and then marrying their wives?

 

"Abusing wives" -- Does that include lying to them?

Since Rockpond is certain that he is not projecting modern societal norms onto JS, tell me Rocky were in the scriptures does it say it is a sin to marry a 14 year old if you are 23 years older than her?

 

 

 

>>> So cultural norms dictate morality.  Got it.

 

Clearly they do in some cases. I guess.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[rockpond]

Since Rockpond is certain that he is not projecting modern societal norms onto JS, tell me Rocky were in the scriptures does it say it is a sin to marry a 14 year old if you are 23 years older than her?

 

Nowhere in our scriptural canon.  But do our latter-day prophets and apostles approve of 14 year old girls getting married?

[wenglund]

I'm asking for 1831 evidence of the revelation. There is next to none until 1860s.

 

What is the evidence that it wasn't revealed in 1831 and transcribed years later?

 

Here is a list of statements corroborating the angel and sword account:  link removed/temple content

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

Nowhere in our scriptural canon.  But do our latter-day prophets and apostles approve of 14 year old girls getting married?

 

No.  Prophets today don't.  Prophets in the 1800's (and for the 5000 years before) did.

 

Which one is operating on morality and which is simply adjusted to the culture?

[cinepro]

What is the evidence that it wasn't revealed in 1831 and transcribed years later?

 

Here is a list of statements corroborating the angel and sword account: Joseph Smith's other angelic visitations.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

The "evidence" is that the principles of Section 132 are based on the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage", which is the sealing power, which wasn't restored to the Earth until 1836.

 

As I said earlier in this thread, there is a serious problem with the Fanny Alger situation if it requires us to theorize a secret, illegal form of "time only" polygamy being performed years before the restoration of the sealing power.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cinepro

[rockpond]

No.  Prophets today don't.  Prophets in the 1800's (and for the 5000 years before) did.

 

Which one is operating on morality and which is simply adjusted to the culture?

 

It seems you'd have to say that one set of prophets is incorrect on the matter or that we're letting our morality be dictated by culture.  Is there another option?

[Tacenda]

What is the evidence that it wasn't revealed in 1831 and transcribed years later?

 

Here is a list of statements corroborating the angel and sword account: link removed/temple content

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm shocked that you would link to "Re-thinking Mormonism", an anti site.  Isn't there an authorized LDS website for this?  Or was that something impossible to find in one spot?  I totally understand that you'd have to settle for this anti site.  Because it's near impossible to have the history of these things all in one place for easier access in our church, tangled webs.

[wenglund]

The "evidence" is that the principles of Section 132 are based on the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage", which is the sealing power, which wasn't restored to the Earth until 1836.

 

That may be "evidence" were "revelation" and "restoration of keys" one and the same.

 

Are you suggesting that the principles of Section 132 couldn't have been revealed prior to the sealing keys being restored? If so, on what basis?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

That may be "evidence" were "revelation" and "restoration of keys" one and the same.

 

Are you suggesting that the principles of Section 132 couldn't have been revealed prior to the sealing keys being restored? If so, on what basis?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The question is plural marriage. Was revelation about plural marriage had by Joseph in 1831? did it come later? When? What evidence is there to support an earlier date?

[wenglund]

I'm shocked that you would link to "Re-thinking Mormonism", an anti site.  Isn't there an authorized LDS website for this?  Or was that something impossible to find in one spot?  I totally understand that you'd have to settle for this anti site.  Because it's near impossible to have the history of these things all in one place for easier access in our church, tangled webs.

 

What was important to me was the relevant quotes, and not who was citing them.

 

However, since the critics are often loath to accept evidence from a pro LDS web site, I am not adverse to linking to sites they may be more apt to trust.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

That may be "evidence" were "revelation" and "restoration of keys" one and the same.

 

Are you suggesting that the principles of Section 132 couldn't have been revealed prior to the sealing keys being restored? If so, on what basis?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Well, you would need to specify which "principles of Section 132" you are referring to.

 

The problem is, this is how the Church teaches "the principles of Section 132" now. 

 

1. Eternal marriage is essential in Heavenly Father’s plan.

Teach and discuss D&C 131:1–4; 132:4–33. Explain that these passages contain revelations from the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith about eternal marriage. Elder Parley P. Pratt, one of the original members of the Quorum of the Twelve in this dispensation, recalled his feelings when he first heard the Prophet Joseph teach these doctrines: <snip>

 

(emphasis added)

 

So we're talking about two completely different things.  For Fanny Alger and an 1831 date, we have to be talking about time-only, non-sealing polygamy (or marriage in general).  Now, the Church wants Section 132 to be teaching monogamous, eternal marriage.  It's the exact opposite.

[cursor]

This is such a cynical comment!!

Do you really KNOW what the circumstances were? Were you there when The Lord gave the revelation? Did you interview all the witnesses and deduce the truth from their statements? Right, and neither did I.

Oh, I forgot, because we live in the "enlightened age" there is no doubt that Joseph was nothing but a lecherous wolf, preying on the unsuspecting of his flock. I sincerely hope that The Lord does not use the same method of judgment as expressed by so many who make these assumptions.

. . . .

Joseph is The Prophet of the Restoration and will be honored throughout the eternities for his sacrifice and the resulting slanders to his name.

 

Owning a strong testimony about one's faith is good, but not solid without strong consideration of historical fact.

 

Consider the very contemporary instance of Warren Jeffs (is a former president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), who in 2011 was convicted of two felony counts of child sexual assault under very similar circumstances as those of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger. The marriage, and subsequent sexual acts were viewed by local governments to be illegal — despite any assumption of celestial/heavenly authority. I'm certain that Jeff's followers feel that he was wronged and is being persecuted by unenlightened folk.

 

It seems to me that the Article of Faith 12 clearly applies here. How exactly can one circumvent government law, by claiming heavenly right to more powerful keys?

 

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

 

Please leave the criminals out of this.

[wenglund]

The question is plural marriage. Was revelation about plural marriage had by Joseph in 1831? did it come later? When? What evidence is there to support an earlier date?

 

I understood beforehand what the question was about, just as I understood the difference between revelation and restoration of keys. To me, if the so-called scant evidence suggests an 1831 date for the initial revelation, which wasn't transcribed and presented to the Church until years later, this isn't contravened by the fact that the sealing keys were restored several years later, though prior to the transcription of the revelation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cursor]

Since Rockpond is certain that he is not projecting modern societal norms onto JS, tell me Rocky were in the scriptures does it say it is a sin to marry a 14 year old if you are 23 years older than her?

 

Personally, I would never allow a 14-year old daughter of mine to marry.

Personally, I would never allow a 14-year old daughter of mine to marry a 37 year old man.

 

Personally, I'm nine years older than my wife, but we were married when she was 27 (and with a degree in biomedical engineering). And, I doubt that Fannie was any more (and very probably much less) informed than any 14 year old today (although, I expect that she was just as physically attractive).

 

After my mother's death, my father married a woman from his ward that is 17 years younger than he is. She (like he), however, had already raised eight children. Grandchildren were well on the way.

 

My younger brother, at the ripe age of 17, married his high school sweetheart (of what ... three months). What did he know, after all? And, what could she possibly have known about life? It didn't turn out so well.

 

Positively arguing that it's OK for any male to marry a 14 year old girl is not something a smart parent can do.

Positively arguing that it's OK for a male of 37 to marry a 14 year old girl is pretty crazy.

 

Certainly, breaking the law to do so ... is certainly illegal (see Article of Faith 12).

Edited November 10, 2014 by cursor

[wenglund]

Well, you would need to specify which "principles of Section 132" you are referring to.

 

The problem is, this is how the Church teaches "the principles of Section 132" now. 

 

 

 

So we're talking about two completely different things.  For Fanny Alger and an 1831 date, we have to be talking about time-only, non-sealing polygamy (or marriage in general).  Now, the Church wants Section 132 to be teaching monogamous, eternal marriage.  It's the exact opposite.

 

In addition to the presentism, you have gone from confusing revelation with restored keys to now confusing both with practice, while assuming in your confusion that this is somehow "evidence" that the revelation was initially received post 1831.  Fascinating.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

I understood beforehand what the question was about, just as I understood the difference between revelation and restoration of keys. To me, if the so-called scant evidence suggests an 1831 date for the initial revelation, which wasn't transcribed and presented to the Church until years later, this isn't contravened by the fact that the sealing keys were restored several years later, though prior to the transcription of the revelation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The heading to the section nor the later comments about it in the recent essay suggest the whole revelation was given in 1831, but principles behind the revelation.

As for the keys, not really my concern so I leave that alone.

[cinepro]

In addition to the presentism, you have gone from confusing revelation with restored keys to now confusing both with practice, while assuming in your confusion that this is somehow "evidence" that the revelation was initially received post 1831.  Fascinating.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Like I said, you've just got to define your terms.  I'm using the definition from the Scriptures and current Church publications. Just let me know how you're defining it and we can go from there.

 

But I'm not sure what else you're looking for.  The claim for an early 1830's origin for D&C 132 has no "evidence"; it's just a claim that appears to be made out of thin air and is simply back-dating the "revelation" to a more convenient time.  We have just as much evidence that Moroni revealed D&C 132 to Joseph during his visit on the evening of September 23, 1823, and Joseph just sat on it for 20 years.  There's no evidence that he didn't!

Edited November 10, 2014 by cinepro

[JLHPROF]

It seems you'd have to say that one set of prophets is incorrect on the matter or that we're letting our morality be dictated by culture.  Is there another option?

 

Yes, marital age is NOT a moral issue.  It is a societal one.  And if the current prophets have instruction on it, it is based on following the laws of the land (society), not on whether it's moral.

[rockpond]

Yes, marital age is NOT a moral issue.  It is a societal one.  And if the current prophets have instruction on it, it is based on following the laws of the land (society), not on whether it's moral.

 

It's based on following the laws of the land?

 

From For the Strength of Youth:

 

You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Developing serious relationships too early in life can limit the number of other people you meet and can perhaps lead to immorality. Invite your parents to become acquainted with those you date.

[wenglund]

Personally, I would never allow a 14-year old daughter of mine to marry.

Personally, I would never allow a 14-year old daughter of mine to marry a 37 year old man.

 

Personally, I'm nine years older than my wife, but we were married when she was 27 (and with a degree in biomedical engineering). And, I doubt that Fannie was any more (and very probably much less) informed than any 14 year old today (although, I expect that she was just as physically attractive).

 

After my mother's death, my father married a woman from his ward that is 17 years younger than he is. She (like he), however, had already raised eight children. Grandchildren were well on the way.

 

My younger brother, at the ripe age of 17, married his high school sweetheart (of what ... three months). What did he know, after all? And, what could she possibly have known about life? 

 

Positively arguing that it's OK for any male to marry a 14 year old girl is not something a smart parent can do.

Positively arguing that it's OK for a male of 37 to marry a 14 year old girl is pretty crazy.

 

Certainly, breaking the law to do so ... is certainly illegal (Article of Faith 12).

 

A clear example of presentism  Good parents these days wouldn't think of leaving their doors unlocked, nor not have health insurance, nor let children take fruit from other peoples orchards, or drop out of school, whereas good parents in olden times, like Mary and Joseph, didn't need to worry about locking their tents or stables, and heath care systems were even a twinkle in their eye, and it was customary to pick other people's fruit, and too often the parents were too poor to send their children to school and opted instead to apprentice them in trades like carpentry. 

 

Even in modern cultures there are marked differences. Good parents today in some cultures wouldn't consider letting their children pick their own spouse, etc.

 

The point being, what good parents may do today in some cultures may not be what good parents may have done in days gone by or in other cultures.

 

Thanks, -Wade Enlglund-

Edited November 10, 2014 by wenglund

[JLHPROF]

It's based on following the laws of the land?

 

From For the Strength of Youth:

 

You should not date until you are at least 16 years old. When you begin dating, go with one or more additional couples. Avoid going on frequent dates with the same person. Developing serious relationships too early in life can limit the number of other people you meet and can perhaps lead to immorality. Invite your parents to become acquainted with those you date.

 

This is dating, not marriage.  Why do you think dating more than 2 years before marriage age would be a bad idea?  If marriage age was 16 I am sure the recommendation would be not to date (court) before 14.  It is extended courtships and dating without the possibility of marriage that lead to immorality.

 

Only the "serious relationship" warning even comes close to your point, and as I've already shown 100 times, too early in life is subject to society, not morality.

Marriage age is still not a moral issue, but a societal one.  Nothing in Church position has ever said otherwise.  Just follow the current laws for marriage age.  (Which in 1800s America was legal after 10).

[cinepro]

Yes, marital age is NOT a moral issue.  It is a societal one.  And if the current prophets have instruction on it, it is based on following the laws of the land (society), not on whether it's moral.

 

Ultimately, posts like this seem more to me like someone trying to explain to themselves why they're okay with the the whole issue of Helen Kimball's age at the time of her sealing to Joseph (and the disparity in their ages).  Sometimes Church history makes apologists and other Church members feel like they have to defend the weirdest things, and weird things usually require weird arguments to defend them.

 

It's also odd to have people accuse others of "presentism" when there is criticism of the way polygamy was practiced, as if people back then were okay with it and it's only 21st century society that has a problem with it. 

 

Well, hate to break it to you, but people were pretty not okay with polygamy back then, and say what you will about "age of marriage" and whatnot, but I think even Joseph Smith knew that if it got out that he had been sealed to a 14 year old girl, there would be Trouble in River City.  Which is probably why he tried to keep it a secret.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cinepro

[wenglund]

Like I said, you've just got to define your terms.  I'm using the definition from the Scriptures and current Church publications. Just let me know how you're defining it and we can go from there.

 

But I'm not sure what else you're looking for.  The claim for an early 1830's origin for D&C 132 has no "evidence"; it's just a claim that appears to be made out of thin air and is simply back-dating the "revelation" to a more convenient time.  We have just as much evidence that Moroni revealed D&C 132 to Joseph during his visit on the evening of September 23, 1823, and Joseph just sat on it for 20 years.  There's no evidence that he didn't!

 

As expected, you have it exactly backwards. You are the one making the claim that the restoration of the sealing keys is evidence that the D&C revelation (in principle or otherwise) postdates 1831. The onus is then on you. I am simply pointing out that, aside from presentism, your alleged "evidence" conflates revelation with restored keys and practice. I don't need to define terms in order to point this out. What I need to accept your alleged "evidence" is for you to substantiate it as evidence in a way that doesn't conflate those three things and by which it rightly considers the matter in the context of the early 1800's when it was revealed rather than as we may view it today.

 

Furthermore, your serious conflations under the guise of "evidence" do not give sound reason to dismiss multiple testimonies corroborating the 1831 claim. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

This is dating, not marriage.  Why do you think dating more than 2 years before marriage age would be a bad idea?  If marriage age was 16 I am sure the recommendation would be not to date (court) before 14.  It is extended courtships and dating without the possibility of marriage that lead to immorality.

 

Only the "serious relationship" warning even comes close to your point, and as I've already shown 100 times, too early in life is subject to society, not morality.

Marriage age is still not a moral issue, but a societal one.  Nothing in Church position has ever said otherwise.  Just follow the current laws for marriage age.  (Which in 1800s America was legal after 10).

you have a point, you do. But it seems likely to me that things like marriage age has increased because experience has proven for girls to marry young is nothing but damaging to the child who marries so young. "Society" stepping in and defining marriage age to be old than it once was is and effort to protect children. if morality doesn't fit in then it's a wonder why society wants to protect children in the first place. Damaging children seems to fit into a morality-type issue.