Evidence For An 1831 Date For Section 132?

[USU78]

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).

 

Well   . . .

 

If marriages of 14-year-olds were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

 

Likewise, if 1st marriages of nubile girls to men 20+/- years their senior were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

 

Since they weren't, our panties-on-fire-skirts-pulled-up-passed-our-waists worrying about it seems a waste of energy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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).

Though I agree with you 100% I am not advocating for child marriages. What I am trying to get across those naysayers to JS' polygamy practice, there is nothing in scripture that bares it's practice. It has even been said that Marry was most likely 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph and that would mean that she was 12 when she conceived.

 

And if you are going to trot out the 12th article of Faith then JS we guilty of more. So how does that square? Do you ignore it? Or do you place the 12th article of faith aside when God commands certain things?

[cursor]

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 they parents 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.

 

In actuality ... I have always left doors unlocked (I live in southern California ... but I won't share my address) ... my dad leaves his front door unlocked in Provo, UT constantly, my son and daughter both leave their doors unlocked (in SLC, UT). I, my wife, and my children all feel that it's fine to pick fruit from other peoples' orchards (provided we ask for permission first). Both my children have no health insurance, but they do just fine (for the time being), because they are health-smart.

 

Clearly your post regarding presentism hardly applies to my post.

 

Yes there are cultural variations over the years, but the fact of the matter is that there are and were laws regarding plural marriage (and the ages of very young women involved in any sexual relationship). How exactly can you suggest that governmental law should be overridden by heavenly/celestial law ... in total opposition to Article of Faith 12?

[stemelbow]

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-

I'll leave the rest of your post to Cinepro but this particular point fits in nicely with this thread. What multiple testimonies corroborating the 1831 claim do you have in mind? This thread was started to discuss whether the claim that plural marriage was revealed to JS in 1831 is supported by evidence. But so far not one piece of evidence under consideration suggests 1831. All are much later.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

Do they oppose it? Right back at you. The point is that you are looking at things from a modern perspective and saying "It is wrong today it was wrong yesterday". Except it isn't. And you have absolutely no reason to condemn JS marring a 14 year old. So you should drop it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Clearly....

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Golly, that is the only option? Queue music for a SSM in the temple debate. 

[stemelbow]

Going back to the call for references that is this thread, the closest it seems to me to fitting the bill is this posted by Nevo:

Corroborating Phelps’ recollection is a contemporaneous letter from Ezra Booth who wrote to Ira Eddy on December 6, 1831 saying: “It has been made known by revelation, that it will be pleasing to the Lord, should they form a matrimonial alliance with the natives. . . . It has been made known to one, who has left his wife in the State of New York, that he is entirely free from his wife, and he is at pleasure to take him a wife from among the Lamanites.”

I think this little piece Is fairly decent all by itself, even if I can see how Canard's concerns on it may carry some weight. It'd be nice if there were other things. I have yet to find anything of note.

[JLHPROF]

Well   . . .

 

If marriages of 14-year-olds were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

 

Likewise, if 1st marriages of nubile girls to men 20+/- years their senior were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

 

Since they weren't, our panties-on-fire-skirts-pulled-up-passed-our-waists worrying about it seems a waste of energy.

 

"nearly all are trying to get wives, until there is hardly a girl 14 years old in Utah, but what is married, or just going to be."  -  Apr 1, 1857 - Wilford Woodruff to George A. Smith

 

Sounds like the norm in Mormonism during the 1800s and not some Joseph Smith aberration to me.

Edited November 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[rockpond]

Do they oppose it? Right back at you. The point is that you are looking at things from a modern perspective and saying "It is wrong today it was wrong yesterday". Except it isn't. And you have absolutely no reason to condemn JS marring a 14 year old. So you should drop it.

 

I think they do oppose it -- that seems clear in FTSOY.

 

JLHPROF has explained that they could simply be opposing it on legal grounds and I accept that.  But in taking that position you are saying that it is morally okay for a 37 year old to marry a 14 year old whenever legal.  JLH seems comfortable with that position.  I am not.

 

Also I am not condemning Joseph Smith.  I am just saying that I believe his practice of polygamy was in error (and not just because of his marriage to Helen Mar).  But that should not be taken to mean that I think he was a Lothario, I am quite open to the belief that he was utterly sincere in his belief that he was rightfully restoring a biblical practice.

Edited November 10, 2014 by rockpond

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

I am not advocating violating any law of the land.  But I find it impossible to convince myself that the first 5900 years of human society had the marital age or the end of childhood age wrong from a moral perspective and that we in the last 114 years all of a sudden are the great bastions of moral rectitude on the subject.

No, we just happen to be the odd ones out.  Not the more moral than has ever lived.

We call it an effort to protect children, but this still bases on the idea that a 15 year old is a child.  Again, why are we right and the previous 5900 years of human society wrong.

[rockpond]

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?

 

 

Golly, that is the only option? Queue music for a SSM in the temple debate. 

 

You are welcome to put forward your answer to the question I asked but I understand that would not be consistent with your MO here.

[cursor]

Well   . . .

 

If marriages of 14-year-olds were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

 

Likewise, if 1st marriages of nubile girls to men 20+/- years their senior were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

 

Since they weren't, our panties-on-fire-skirts-pulled-up-passed-our-waists worrying about it seems a waste of energy.

 

I gave you a wrongly awarded you a reputation point for your post. I strongly take it back.

 

"Since they weren't, our panties-on-fire-skirts-pulled-up-passed-our-waists worrying about it seems a waste of energy."

 

I have absolutely no idea what that might mean USU78.

 

Even if it were OK (at that time) for a guy to marry a 14 year old "nubile girl" 20+ years their senior, how exactly is it LEGAL to take her as a second wife, when that is contrary to the law of the state (and consequently contrary to the 12th Article of Faith)? And, how is that even possibly right in the eyes of the 20+ year old senior with a cultural sense for differences in generation? With that logic, I could very nearly marry my daughter. My daughter could certainly marry her son ... given the required divine OK, and given the heavenly authority.

 

Then what, exactly is the problem with Warren Jeffs' sexual involvement with multiple under-aged teen girls outside of legal wedlock?

[wenglund]

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.

 

What "damage" do you have in mind?

 

I ask because my perception is that parents these days are reticent to let their children marry young because they view their children as not being mature enough to make wise spousal choices nor adequate in their able to manage marriage and families, neither of which would be a factor in days gone by where there was an agrarian societies where parents chose the spouses.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF has explained that they could simply be opposing it on legal grounds and I accept that.  But in taking that position you are saying that it is morally okay for a 37 year old to marry a 14 year old whenever legal.  JLH seems comfortable with that position.  I am not.

 

 

Just to be clear, I am comfortable with the notion in a society that prepares youth for it.  I would NOT be comfortable in our current situation where 14 year olds are barely more mature than 8 year olds.

Our 14 year olds today are absolutely children.  14 year olds in society for the 5900 years before 1900 were NOT children.

[cursor]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

The word "clearly" has a clear meaning ... clearly. 

 

What I said was, "Clearly your post regarding presentism hardly applies to my post."

(Post 79 of this thread/topic)

 

How exactly is that inaccurate?

Edited November 10, 2014 by cursor

[rockpond]

Just to be clear, I am comfortable with the notion in a society that prepares youth for it.  I would NOT be comfortable in our current situation where 14 year olds are barely more mature than 8 year olds.

Our 14 year olds today are absolutely children.  14 year olds in society for the 5900 years before 1900 were NOT children.

 

Fair enough.

[stemelbow]

"nearly all are trying to get wives, until there is hardly a girl 14 years old in Utah, but what is married, or just going to be."  -  Apr 1, 1857 - Wilford Woodruff to George A. Smith

 

Sounds like the norm in Mormonism during the 1800s and not some Joseph Smith aberration to me.

you mean introduced by JS was men marrying young teenagers 20 years younger than they, and others in the Church followed suit, means it was not an aberration?

[stemelbow]

I am not advocating violating any law of the land.  But I find it impossible to convince myself that the first 5900 years of human society had the marital age or the end of childhood age wrong from a moral perspective and that we in the last 114 years all of a sudden are the great bastions of moral rectitude on the subject.

No, we just happen to be the odd ones out.  Not the more moral than has ever lived.

We call it an effort to protect children, but this still bases on the idea that a 15 year old is a child.  Again, why are we right and the previous 5900 years of human society wrong.

Well that would require that 5900 years of human history and each society agreed that a 14 year old was old enough to marry and do the things that entails. I don't know that you're right on that notion. But if it truly be that God sees fit that some 14 year olds should marry for whatever reason, I'll be happy to step back and leave that alone.

[wenglund]

In actuality ... I have always left doors unlocked (I live in southern California ... but I won't share my address) ... my dad leaves his front door unlocked in Provo, UT constantly, my son and daughter both leave their doors unlocked (in SLC, UT). I, my wife, and my children all feel that it's fine to pick fruit from other peoples' orchards (provided we ask for permission first). Both my children have no health insurance, but they do just fine (for the time being), because they are health-smart.

 

Clearly your post regarding presentism hardly applies to my post.

 

Yes there are cultural variations over the years, but the fact of the matter is that there are and were laws regarding plural marriage (and the ages of very young women involved in any sexual relationship). How exactly can you suggest that governmental law should be overridden by heavenly/celestial law ... in total opposition to Article of Faith 12?

 

Clearly, you missed the point because you mistakenly assumed that I was speaking to exceptional circumstances (such as your own) rather than to the general rule. AoF 12 is a general rule that, on exceptional occasions, has been violated--not the least of which in the practice of polygamy. In fact, leaders of the Church were jailed for such. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'll leave the rest of your post to Cinepro but this particular point fits in nicely with this thread. What multiple testimonies corroborating the 1831 claim do you have in mind? This thread was started to discuss whether the claim that plural marriage was revealed to JS in 1831 is supported by evidence. But so far not one piece of evidence under consideration suggests 1831. All are much later.

 

See my previous post where I provided a link to the multiple statement. It is the post that shocked Tacenda because it was to an anti-Mormon web site.

 

Also, see the initial post by Nevo on this thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Well . . .

If marriages of 14-year-olds were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

Likewise, if 1st marriages of nubile girls to men 20+/- years their senior were particularly uncommon in 1831 on the American frontier, we might be on to something here.

Since they weren't, our panties-on-fire-skirts-pulled-up-passed-our-waists worrying about it seems a waste of energy.

CFR that it was common practice for older men marrying young nubile? girls. If it's not common you've no case, my lawyer friend.

[JLHPROF]

Well that would require that 5900 years of human history and each society agreed that a 14 year old was old enough to marry and do the things that entails. I don't know that you're right on that notion. But if it truly be that God sees fit that some 14 year olds should marry for whatever reason, I'll be happy to step back and leave that alone.

 

He saw fit to send his Only Begotten Son to earth through the body a 14 year old girl who was already married/betrothed to a much older man whom God also worked with.

I'd say he has no issue with it.

 

Since God sets "morals" it must be moral.  It's simple logic.

[JLHPROF]

CFR that it was common practice for older men marrying young nubile? girls. If it's not common you've no case, my lawyer friend.

 

This CFR has been provided repeatedly in this thread.  Well, all except the "nubile" bit.

[stemelbow]

See my previous post where I provided a link to the multiple statement. It is the post that shocked Tacenda because it was to an anti-Mormon web site.

 

Also, see the initial post by Nevo on this thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I saw it, but it doesn't give us any such evidence.