bcuzbcuz Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Yeah let's all judge Joseph Smith, we have nothing to fear. 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the amouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the aheart proceed evil thoughts, bmurders, cadulteries, dfornications, thefts, efalse witness, fblasphemies: 20 These are the things which adefile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.And just what is it, exactly, that we should be fearing if we do not view Joseph´s polygamy and polyandry as enlightened and marvelous actions?Are you married? How would your spouse appreciate you disclosing a number of partners and marriages, all during the time of being married to each other? 1
Tacenda Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Just started listening to this, I c/p the link and heading of the radio program. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/lds-church-and-joseph-smiths-polygamy It may not be breaking news that LDS church founder Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. And yet, many were shocked when the church released an essay last month acknowledging the ages, number, and marital status of Smith’s wives, including a 14-year-old girl. Thursday, we’re examining how Mormons have reacted to the essay. We'll examine how common conception of Smith's plural marriages contrasts with reality, and we'll ask whether Smith's actions compromise the infallibility of the church's prophets.{C}GUESTSPatrick Mason, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate UniversityAndrea Radke-Moss, Professor of women's history, BYU-IdahoRichard Turley, Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Just started listening to this, I c/p the link and heading of the radio program. http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/lds-church-and-joseph-smiths-polygamy It may not be breaking news that LDS church founder Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. And yet, many were shocked when the church released an essay last month acknowledging the ages, number, and marital status of Smith’s wives, including a 14-year-old girl. Thursday, we’re examining how Mormons have reacted to the essay. We'll examine how common conception of Smith's plural marriages contrasts with reality, and we'll ask whether Smith's actions compromise the infallibility of the church's prophets.{C}GUESTSPatrick Mason, Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies, Claremont Graduate UniversityAndrea Radke-Moss, Professor of women's history, BYU-IdahoRichard Turley, Assistant Church Historian and Recorder, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints That is classic Presentism. When I was in High School it was legal for a 13 year old to get legally married. As the Church specifically declines infallibility of its leaders no compromise is necessary or even wanted. Edited December 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint
stemelbow Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 That is classic Presentism. When I was in High School it was legal for a 13 year old to get legally married. Is it presentism to say Joseph married a 14 year old? That's just stating facts. I already listened to the podcast. It didn't do any Presentism on this.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Is it presentism to say Joseph married a 14 year old? That's just stating facts.I already listened to the podcast. It didn't do any Presentism on this. I was responding to the contention that marrying a 14 year old somehow compromises the infallibility of the church's prophets.
stemelbow Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I was responding to the contention that marrying a 14 year old somehow compromises the infallibility of the church's prophets. The Church's prophets are not infallible, anyway. We know Joseph wasn't, because we can read the D&C for starters. it is possible Joseph sinned in marrying a 14 year old. But we may never know.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 The Church's prophets are not infallible, anyway. We know Joseph wasn't, because we can read the D&C for starters.it is possible Joseph sinned in marrying a 14 year old. But we may never know. At the time it was perfectly legal, and while not common wasn't unknown either. As far as sin is concerned I don't believe that God commands us to sin.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Polygamy, as practiced by Joseph Smith, a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair.”I totally agree.Polygamy, by anyone, a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair".Does this mean that the Abrahamic covenant is null and void, since God would never allow such a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" to be conducted by his chosen people, including Abraham, Jacob (Israel) and Moses. Why? Just bcuz . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity .
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 At the time it was perfectly legal, and while not common wasn't unknown either. As far as sin is concerned I don't believe that God commands us to sin.Does that include the binding of Isaac by Abraham, who was ready to sacrifice his son? Does that include Israelite slaughter of innocent Canaanites, whole cities and villages of them?
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 ............................................................... it is possible Joseph sinned in marrying a 14 year old. But we may never know.Marriage with a 14 year old girl in the early 19th century is only an issue to presentists.
stemelbow Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 (edited) Marriage with a 14 year old girl in the early 19th century is only an issue to presentists. not really. It was wildly odd and uncomfortable even for those in the 19th century for a 30 plus year old with multiple wives to marry a 14 year old. Why would we deny that? If say Joseph was a 19 year old and was not already married, then it wouldn't have been all that odd, I grant you. Edited December 10, 2014 by stemelbow
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Does that include the binding of Isaac by Abraham, who was ready to sacrifice his son? Does that include Israelite slaughter of innocent Canaanites, whole cities and villages of them? I think people are very good at making rationalizations for sinning. If the actions of a god are indistinguishable for the actions of a devil why would you worship either?
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I think people are very good at making rationalizations for sinning. If the actions of a god are indistinguishable for the actions of a devil why would you worship either? Good question. What is the answer?
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 not really. It was wildly odd and uncomfortable even for those in the 19th century for a 30 plus year old with multiple wives to marry a 14 year old.Why would we deny that?If say Joseph was a 19 year old and was not already married, then it wouldn't have been all that odd, I grant you.I have seen no research which would justify your extreme claims, and the research I have done and placed on this board in the past certainly indicates otherwise. "Why would we deny that?" Speak for yourself. You are making value judgments based on your own modern, presentist perceptions.
Danzo Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 not really. It was wildly odd and uncomfortable even for those in the 19th century for a 30 plus year old with multiple wives to marry a 14 year old.Why would we deny that?If say Joseph was a 19 year old and was not already married, then it wouldn't have been all that odd, I grant you. So your problem is with the number of wives, not the age? or is it with the age difference?
Guest Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 For the first 100 years or so it did produce righteous seed, and many of those went onto become leaders in the Church.It produced no seed from Joseph. Not a single offspring except through Emma, which is absolute fact that everyone Joseph was sealed too he had no sexual relations at all. Yet with Emma she because with child 11 times. He was being sealed to young women and old women at the same time...I asked many anti-Mormons this question. Do you think Joseph had sexual relations with both the young and old...they conceded that many be the older women, but no way the younger ones. This statement by those who answered with this argument said more about these men and woman. Said more about them than Joseph. My grandfather was 21, after getting out of the Army from WWI he married a woman (or girl if you like of 13...which was common for girls of 13 or 14 to marry in the 1800's into the early 1900 s. Even Loretta Lynn married at around 13 in the 1940. John Quincy Adams was going to marry a 15 year old, until his father John Adams threatened to cut him off and bribed him by offering him by setting up in his own law practice. The issue of marrying a 15 year old was not an issue, the issue was that his father felt he should be well established first. It was a different world I. Joseph's day, a very different day. But we all they to see the world through the prism of our day So the odds that Joseph got not a single women pregnant of all he was sealed too, speaks volumes. I am not saying some were no real marriages, but of thy 34 to 40 he was reported to have married or sealed to...the odds that all were baron; what are the odds?
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 not really. It was wildly odd and uncomfortable even for those in the 19th century for a 30 plus year old with multiple wives to marry a 14 year old.Why would we deny that?If say Joseph was a 19 year old and was not already married, then it wouldn't have been all that odd, I grant you. Exclusion through definition As I said I was in HS when it was legal for a 13 year old to get legally married.SEE http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.htmlSEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
stemelbow Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I have seen no research which would justify your extreme claims, and the research I have done and placed on this board in the past certainly indicates otherwise. "Why would we deny that?" Speak for yourself. You are making value judgments based on your own modern, presentist perceptions. It's extreme to claim that it was odd and very uncomfortable for people in the 1840s to know of a man who married many women including a 14 year old? Polygamy itself was odd and uncomfortable, even without teenagers being involved.
thesometimesaint Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Good question. What is the answer? I don't know the answer. But then I'm very good at my own rationalizations.
stemelbow Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Exclusion through definition As I said I was in HS when it was legal for a 13 year old to get legally married. SEE http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/state-by-state-marriage-age-of-consent-laws.html SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent It was not legal if this girl got married to a man who was married to many other women. It was not even legal in 1840 for that to happen. 1
stemelbow Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 So your problem is with the number of wives, not the age? or is it with the age difference? I don't have a problem at all. I'm saying, on the face of it, it was odd for a man in his mid-30s to marry many women some of which happened to be teenagers, one as young as 14. There's no presentism in that at all. It's what happened and people by and large were uncomfortable with it.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 I don't know the answer. But then I'm very good at my own rationalizations. Well, as you know, some people simply throw out God and the Bible at that point.Others did it after the Holocaust.How is that to be rationalized? Or does it require rationalization?
bcuzbcuz Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 Does this mean that the Abrahamic covenant is null and void, since God would never allow such a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" to be conducted by his chosen people, including Abraham, Jacob (Israel) and Moses. Why? Just bcuz . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity .It is impossible for me to accurately evaluate the mindset of people in the early 1800´s. Equally so, to have any insight into the mindset of those from the old testament, except the records kept by those people themselves. But the stories of Abraham were not written by Abraham. Jacob´s stories weren´t written by Jacob. And the books of Moses weren´t written down until long after the time of Moses, and if Moses did actually author them, then he was used to streeeeeeeetching the truth. The bible records King David´s immorality with Bathsheba and tells how David arranged for Uriah´s death/murder, so I´m not inclined to think of his concubines as being blessed of the lord. The Book of Mormon is clear in its condemnation of polygamy.Did people in the early 1800´s view immorality with a wide margin of tolerance? Did they view unfaithfulness as "acceptable". Well, Cowdery obviously didn´t. And I could care less if my views on the issue are "presentist". I have no intention of having multiple wives. I find the concept repulsive. I have no intention of taking a teenage wife (I am 69 years old).....and not rich (lol). And Hefner isn´t a hero of mine.TThere are many things in the old testament that do not apply today (collecting foreskins from defeated, etc) but the 10 commandments, no killing, no adultery, seem good enough for me. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 It's extreme to claim that it was odd and very uncomfortable for people in the 1840s to know of a man who married many women including a 14 year old?Polygamy itself was odd and uncomfortable, even without teenagers being involved.I thought we were discussing marriage of 14 year old girls in the 19th century. Are you going to give us the lastest Field poll to show what Joseph's contermporares actually thought, or are you simply going to continue to claim presentism as your base? A hint: Most of these early marriage laws were done away with in the mid to late 20th century. Might that not be indicative of changed public opinion?
Tacenda Posted December 10, 2014 Posted December 10, 2014 It produced no seed from Joseph. Not a single offspring except through Emma, which is absolute fact that everyone Joseph was sealed too he had no sexual relations at all. Yet with Emma she because with child 11 times. He was being sealed to young women and old women at the same time...I asked many anti-Mormons this question. Do you think Joseph had sexual relations with both the young and old...they conceded that many be the older women, but no way the younger ones. This statement by those who answered with this argument said more about these men and woman. Said more about them than Joseph. My grandfather was 21, after getting out of the Army from WWI he married a woman (or girl if you like of 13...which was common for girls of 13 or 14 to marry in the 1800's into the early 1900 s. Even Loretta Lynn married at around 13 in the 1940. John Quincy Adams was going to marry a 15 year old, until his father John Adams threatened to cut him off and bribed him by offering him by setting up in his own law practice. The issue of marrying a 15 year old was not an issue, the issue was that his father felt he should be well established first. It was a different world I. Joseph's day, a very different day. But we all they to see the world through the prism of our day So the odds that Joseph got not a single women pregnant of all he was sealed too, speaks volumes. I am not saying some were no real marriages, but of thy 34 to 40 he was reported to have married or sealed to...the odds that all were baron; what are the odds?I understand your faithfulness to keeping Joseph untarnished and I even understand placing blame on the doubter or questioner. But don't understand the dismissal of the easy answers to why Joseph hasn't had verified offspring from these marriages. In their times, there was something called birth control through natural means, I can think of two right off the top of my head. And one is not abortion whatsoever. Joseph was not open with his polygamy at first, and denied it. It wouldn't look good if women were pregnant with his children. Plus it may not have been about righteous seed being born at all, which is the one way that makes polygamy ok, or the so called Law of Sarah. If JS married older women especially. Church historian, Richard Turville mentions on the radio program, that the church is not saying there was no sex involved at all, because it was a marriage, and there was romance. And as an aside Richard showed some embarrassment over someone's input that Helen's age was a few months before age 15, I guess it wasn't his idea. Ane he also mentions that a lot more info will come out in the Joseph Smith's Papers project.
Recommended Posts