Evidence For An 1831 Date For Section 132?

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

I mean more than one is not an aberration, regardless of starting point.  And Joseph may have been the first Mormon with a 14 year old plural wife, but he wasn't even the first resident of Nauvoo with a 14 year old wife.

Edited November 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

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.

And there is plenty of room to make exceptions in life. so I don't know that we hold this one fantastic and extraordinary example as the precedent.

[wenglund]

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

 

Speak for yourself. I think otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Speak for yourself. I think otherwise.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I did.

[stemelbow]

I mean more than one is not an aberration, regardless of starting point.  And Joseph may have been the first Mormon with a 14 year old plural wife, but he wasn't even the first resident of Nauvoo with a 14 year old wife.

Who else in Nauvoo was married to a 14 year old before Joseph? Was this person 20 years the girls senior at the time of marriage?

[Tacenda]

"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.

Enough to make me ill, that you see this as being the norm when it wasn't so everywhere else. They surely were just going by the example of Joseph Smith.

[wenglund]

I did.

 

No. You presumptuously used the inclusive "us."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[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-

 

Are you arguing that "polygamy" in general was revealed in 1831, or that the specific principles of D&C 132 were revealed? 

 

Because according to the Church, D&C 132 is about the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which requires the sealing power, which wasn't on the Earth before 1836. 

 

Ultimately, I guess the question is whether or not God revealed it and commanded it before the sealing power was restored, and if so, whether the situation with Fanny Alger was the way in which He wanted it carried out.  That's probably something each of us needs to try and figure out for ourselves.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cinepro

[cursor]

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 was once surprised at my father's claim (a [Mormon] anthropologist) that current young Saints (teenage) are so much more aware of the scriptures and their meaning (this was just within this last year), than were those of previous generations. Being of my generation (and his?) and being responsibly educated in the scriptures, and having had conversations with the faithful of the "current" generation, I felt just a bit offended. Whatever. The truth is that the youth of the 19th century (at whatever age) were dramatically more naïve and were more substantially misinformed than their generational offspring. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by cursor

[stemelbow]

Are you arguing that "polygamy" in general was revealed in 1831, or that the specific principles of D&C 132 were revealed? 

 

Because according to the Church, D&C 132 is about the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which requires the sealing power, which wasn't on the Earth before 1836. 

 

Ultimately, I guess the question is whether or not God revealed it and commanded it before the sealing power was restored, and if so, whether the situation with Fanny Alger was the way in which He wanted it carried out.  That's probably something each of us needs to try and figure out for ourselves.

Well stated. Any of our options on this are possible. God could have had Joseph marry Fanny before the sealing power was restored. We simply wouldn't know. it just might be a little troubling for us trying to piece this stuff together hoping it results in us feeling good about all that went down.

Tough spot, in a sense, we find ourselves in. People want to condemn us for believing this weird stuff. We want to explain we don't necessarily believe the weird stuff, but it remains there anyway.

[cursor]

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.

 

And they were jailed in accordance with the law ... which they must have supported, given the 12th Article of Faith.

 

So ... which [mis]actions are to supported by a super-claim of heavenly rights, and which actions are bound by the governmental laws, supported by the 12th Article of Faith? It seems to me that there is a serious conflict here.

[cinepro]

"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've actually picked an outlier. 

 

In 1857, the Church was going through the "Reformation" period where there was intense pressure for men to adopt plural marriage. 

 

Because entering into plural marriage was regarded as an especial sign of devotion, more members applied for plural marriages during this period than at any other point.^%5B8%5D Average age of brides dropped to its lowest level during this period (between 16-17 years old for women in either monogamous or polygamous marriages).^%5B9%5D

 

This is a good example of some of the probable excesses during the Reformation; divorces following the Reformation were substantially higher than at other points. It is likely that under the social pressure to prove their loyalty and fidelity to their covenants, some members married too quickly or unwisely. "I was obedient but not wise," wrote a member later, "I married a girl but she did it more of fright than of love; for that reason it could not last long—only about 9 months [and] then she was divorced in 1858."^%5B10%5D

 

On the other hand, more plural marriages created an artificial "shortage" of marriageable women. As Daynes notes, this helped integrate recent European immigrants into Utah. Women from overseas who would have probably remained unmarried under a "one-wife-per-man" policy were suddenly much better marriage prospects. This aided their integration, enhanced their economic standing, and also produced children by women who might would have otherwise remained childless.^%5B11%5D

If the rate of plural marriage is going to increase in a group of people, you either have to increase the number of marriageable women by bringing in new women or dropping the age at which women can be married. Or you can decrease the number of marriageable men (maybe by sending them on missions...?)

But that quote was an aberration, not the norm.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

No. You presumptuously used the inclusive "us."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even though you know what I meant, I'll continue. Not one quote or piece from your link is evidence that the concept of plural marriage was something revealed to Joseph in 1831. If you disagree please provide the quote and reference for it?

[Calm]

. The truth is that the youth of the 19th century (at whatever age) were dramatically more naïve and were more substantially misinformed than their generational offspring.

Naive and misinformed about what? I have a hard time seeing youth who had seen friends and relatives killed, friends and relatives die from disease, childbirth, minor accidents that today would be taken care of by a trip to the ER and antibiotics and maybe a cast, who had to labour much more effectively than the youth of today in order to contribute to their family, even at times helping to ensure the family's survival, youth who did not have significant leisure time or electronic devices to play fantasy games where they are heros or villains affecting the lives of thousands, maybe billions of not only humans, but aliens....I have a hard time picturing these youth who were much more acquainted with hardship and the realities of life from what I've seen and studied as more naive than youth of today.

But that would depend on what was being measured, of course. Things of science that are not simply observable (like the biological mating habits of pigs, for example) are better known by many youth in the US in this day and age.

I would not be the least surprised to find today's youth a lot more naive about the consequences of sex, getting pregnant at a young age etc though...at least those of the middle class.

Edited November 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

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:

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.

I hardly know where the conversation has gone.

You're right. This is it. This is the sum total of evidence for an 1831 date for section 132.

Pretty poor really.

Instead we now have Wade saying that we need to provide evidence that it was not received in 1831. I wonder what evidence he'd like for that and how that remotely answers the OP.

[wenglund]

Are you arguing that "polygamy" in general was revealed in 1831, or that the specific principles of D&C 132 were revealed? 

 

Because according to the Church, D&C 132 is about the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, which requires the sealing power, which wasn't on the Earth before 1836. 

 

Ultimately, I guess the question is whether or not God revealed it and commanded it before the sealing power was restored, and if so, whether the situation with Fanny Alger was the way in which He wanted it carried out.  That's probably something each of us needs to try and figure out for ourselves.

 

What I am suggesting is that the timing of the restoration of the sealing power doesn't negate the 1831 dating of the revelation or related practices, nor is it evidence one way or another  In other words, your confusing principles with restored keys and practices, does not negate multiple testimonies to the contrary, nor is it evidence, in and of itself for when the revelation may have been received.

 

However, people are free to speculate, with or without evidence, as they wish on this relatively inconsequential issue.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

So it is one more thing we chose to rely on faith for answers to, I don't see much difference between accepting an earlier date for God talking to JS and God talking at all.

[Tacenda]

I hardly know where the conversation has gone.

You're right. This is it. This is the sum total of evidence for an 1831 date for section 132.

Pretty poor really.

Instead we now have Wade saying that we need to provide evidence that it was not received in 1831. I wonder what evidence he'd like for that and how that remotely answers the OP.

http://bycommonconsent.com/?s=sunday+evening+s+part+1

Stumbled onto this website...very interesting insights and a lot to read, seems like legit info and may hold the key.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

I hardly know where the conversation has gone.

You're right. This is it. This is the sum total of evidence for an 1831 date for section 132.

Pretty poor really.

Instead we now have Wade saying that we need to provide evidence that it was not received in 1831. I wonder what evidence he'd like for that and how that remotely answers the OP.

 

Like I said at the beginning, there are only two evidences.

One is the revelation given about marrying Lamanites received while on the mission.  The other is the probable coincidence of the answer in D&C 1 with the asking of the question during the translation of the Bible.

 

If neither is sufficient then there is little proof.  Personally, I find them sufficient.

[cursor]

...

Edited November 11, 2014 by cursor

[wenglund]

I hardly know where the conversation has gone.

You're right. This is it. This is the sum total of evidence for an 1831 date for section 132.

Pretty poor really.

Instead we now have Wade saying that we need to provide evidence that it was not received in 1831. I wonder what evidence he'd like for that and how that remotely answers the OP.

 

What we have is Wade initiating a comparative analysis of hypotheses for the dating of the revelation and finding that while evidence in support of the 1831 date is scant, evidence in support of later dates is non-existent at this point, and rationally deciding to follow the evidence, while reserving the right to change his mind on this relatively inconsequential issue were later found data to suggest otherwise.  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cursor]

Naive and misinformed about what? I have a hard time seeing youth who had seen friends and relatives killed, friends and relatives die from disease, childbirth, minor accidents that today would be taken care of by a trip to the ER and antibiotics and maybe a cast, who had to labour much more effectively than the youth of today in order to contribute to their family, even at times helping to ensure the family's survival, youth who did not have significant leisure time or electronic devices to play fantasy games where they are heros or villains affecting the lives of thousands, maybe billions of not only humans, but aliens....I have a hard time picturing these youth who were much more acquainted with hardship and the realities of life from what I've seen and studied as more naive than youth of today.

But that would depend on what was being measured, of course. Things of science that are not simply observable (like the biological mating habits of pigs, for example) are better known by many youth in the US in this day and age.

I would not be the least surprised to find today's youth a lot more naive about the consequences of sex, getting pregnant at a young age etc though...at least those of the middle class.

 

You seem angry. We're not talking about pigs here (at least I didn't imagine so).

 

I sense that my 19 year old grandson is substantially more aware and sensitive to potential involvement in (or the avoidance of) a pregnancy than a young man (or woman) in the 1830s.

Edited November 11, 2014 by cursor

[cursor]

What we have is Wade initiating a comparative analysis of hypotheses for the dating of the revelation and finding that while evidence in support of the 1831 date is scant, evidence in support of later dates is non-existent at this point, and rationally deciding to follow the evidence, while reserving the right to change his mind on this relatively inconsequential issue were later found data to suggest otherwise.  

 

Wow ... that says almost nothing. Read it again. Seriously.

[USU78]

What we have is Wade initiating a comparative analysis of hypotheses for the dating of the revelation and finding that while evidence in support of the 1831 date is scant, evidence in support of later dates is non-existent at this point, and rationally deciding to follow the evidence, while reserving the right to change his mind on this relatively inconsequential issue were later found data to suggest otherwise.  

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Seems to me we shouldn't completely discount Eliza's inclusion of Fanny in the JSJr Wives list.

 

I mean, of those living after 1844, who would be most likely to know the particulars if not her?

[Calm]

You seem angry. We're not talking about pigs here (at least I didn't imagine so).

 

I sense that my 19 year old grandson is substantially more aware and sensitive to potential involvement in (or the avoidance of) a pregnancy than a young man (or woman) in the 1830s.

Not angry.  Just a little dumbfounded.