JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I strongly suspect you are overestimating the tolerance in 19th century American society for a 37-year-old married man taking a 14-year-old girl as an additional wife. Even a "celestial" one. No data, just a suspicion. But based on the secrecy needed in Nauvoo, the reaction to the general public when it was made public in Utah, and the events leading up to Joseph Smith's death, I'm not seeing a lot of tolerance for such arrangements. The secrecy was directly related to polygamy in a conservative (dare I say Victorian) society.Age differences wouldn't have been the issue that led to secrecy.
cinepro Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 The secrecy was directly related to polygamy in a conservative (dare I say Victorian) society.Age differences wouldn't have been the issue that led to secrecy. But age isn't the only issue for those of us that have a problem with the arrangement.
JLHPROF Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Well, that's a whole different discussion. One I won't participate in on a public forum any more. Oooh, intriguing.
ttribe Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Oooh, intriguing. Naw. Just very private at this point.
cinepro Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 And you know this how? Was a poll taken? Or does this reflect your own feelings? Presentism is a strong element in our modern evaluation of history, but professional historians and anthropologists generally take the differences in stride, understanding that people in the past had a range of differences from us across a broad spectrum. Mature reflection is needed. You say "presentism" like it's a bad thing. It's great that professional historians and anthropologists separate their own personal (and modern societal) moral biases from the ancient cultures they study. If your focus and object is to understand a group of people, and to understand what they did and why, then this only makes sense. The key point is that "professional historians and anthropoligists" are not supposed to make moral judgement, and they're not trying to. Nothing anyone did in the past is presented as "right" or "wrong". We only learn about what they did, perhaps try to understand why the did it, and then each person must figure out for themselves whether it is right or wrong. In other words, there is a difference between not judging the past, and accepting that what someone did in the past was not wrong because their culture (or that person) didn't think it was wrong. When the "presentist" argument is made, you are making an appeal for us to not judge the past. Fine, but you have to accept all that that entails. This means if we can't judge that Joseph Smith was a bad person (or did something "wrong") by our standards (or any standards), then it is also improper for us to judge that he was a good person, or did something good. Because it would be just as improper for a historian or anthropologist to make such a judgement. And ultimately, we're not talking about a study of the American Midwest in the 19th Century, with a focus on the peculiar religious sect of "Mormonism" and their charismatic leader "Joseph Smith jr." We're asking these questions and studying these situations in the context of Joseph Smith jr. being a chosen "Prophet of God", who among other things revealed God's moral laws and expectations to the world. We're reading about what Joseph Smith did in the context of a Church who teaches this: It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong, that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God. The philosophy of moral relativism, which holds that each person is free to choose for himself what is right and wrong, is becoming the unofficial creed for many in America and other western nations. I'm not going to pursue where this train of though ultimately leads if we accept that God's moral laws are unchanging through time (for fear of being banned), so I'll just say that it isn't just the fact that Joseph was sealed to HMK that upsets some Church members, but what it means in the larger picture about Prophets, morality, and our unchanging God. 2
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I hear what you are saying about not changing your opinion if you did have kids, but you might be surprised how things change when you do. My wife and I have three children - Son (16), Son (10), Daughter (7). I used to think I understood teenagers...until I had one. I look at society very differently now with a daughter in my care than I used to (I'm ashamed to admit that it took having a daughter to change certain worldview issues for me).I am going to be honest, and I don't mean to offend, but I have heard that before in varying words and I believe it is a cop-out. I believe one is perfectly capable through personal experience to come to conclusions on how they believe they should interact with their children as parents. Sure there may be some minor bumps along the way, but you have to make a determination to stand firm. Too many parents are wishy-washy and when push comes to shove they don't want to offend their children for fear that they might hate them. Thus, we have a generation of spoiled brats who believe everything is owed to them, because they were capitulated to at every turn.
ttribe Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I am going to be honest, and I don't mean to offend, but I have heard that before in varying words and I believe it is a cop-out. I believe one is perfectly capable through personal experience to come to conclusions on how they believe they should interact with their children as parents. Sure there may be some minor bumps along the way, but you have to make a determination to stand firm. Too many parents are wishy-washy and when push comes to shove they don't want to offend their children for fear that they might hate them. Thus, we have a generation of spoiled brats who believe everything is owed to them, because they were capitulated to at every turn. Okay, man. I've been there, and now I'm here. My world changed...a lot. That's all I'm saying. ETA: Reminds me of a certain State Farm commercial.... Edited June 12, 2015 by ttribe
CV75 Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 - How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live? - What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"? - Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members?Looking at it from another angle, and assuming Helen reported Jospeh's words correctly, taking “this step,” which certainly ensures her (and her father’s and kindred’s) exaltation, does not preclude any of them from taking missteps that to endanger or even veto their exaltation. As part of her father’s family--and exaltation by definiotn is a family matter--she, her father and kindred would have to be exalted together or not at all, “as Paul says concerning the fathers—that they without us cannot be made perfect—neither can we without our dead be made perfect.” (DC 128: 15). And “whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matthew 12:50). So, applying this to your questions: - How could Joseph promise Helen this regarding all of her "father's household" and also all of her kindred without knowing what kind of lives they would each live? The promise is that the sealing ordinance ensures exaltation, but our behavior can easily counter that. - What do we know about who was included in her "father's household" and in her "kindred"? I would say any blood or adopted relative on one hand, and whosoever shall do the will of the Father. - Did they all stay in the church and remain faithful members? I do not know, but I don't think that was the promise. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) That's what husbands and wives do. Joseph Smith also married a 58 year old, a 56 year old, a 53 year old, and a 50 year old. Did Joseph Smith have sex with all of them? Just because he married them doesn't mean he had sex with all of them, so your argument is flawed. "Today" is your first problem. You are judging Joseph's marriage by today's standards in a court of law. Of course the practice was just as problematic back then but your reasoning behind this is flawed. I am not judging anything, I simply want the evidence, I am not interested in emotional arguments. I also don't understand what you are saying I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Of course he contradicted himself at times. Are you arguing otherwise? So according to you he contradicted himself, but not in D&C 132, that is called cherry picking. You are saying that Joseph Smith did have sex with Helen because of D&C 132. Edited June 12, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
HappyJackWagon Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Joseph Smith also married a 58 year old, a 56 year old, a 53 year old, and a 50 year old. Did Joseph Smith have sex with all of them? Are you certain he didn't? I'm not, though I think the scholarly consensus is he probably didn't, just like he "probably" didn't with Helen. Like I've said before, I'm not overly invested in the fight about whether he did or didn't have relations with Helen though I find it amusing that people are so adamant about stating emphatically that he didn't. I'm merly pointing out the silliness of that. Just because he married them doesn't mean he had sex with all of them, so your argument is flawed. You're not understanding my argument because all along I've allowed for the possibility that he DID and also that he DIDN'T. It doesn't matter because I disapprove even if he only called "dibbs". I am not judging anything, I simply want the evidence, I am not interested in emotional arguments. So according to you he contradicted himself, but not in D&C 132, that is called cherry picking. Again, I don't think you're paying close enough attention to what's been written. The argument is that it is reasonable to think JS could have had relations with Helen because 1- He married her and 2- Plural marriage was said to be for the raising of seed. Assuming JS believed that it would stand to be a reasonable possibility he DID have relations with Helen. That's all. I'm not cherry picking anything. You are saying that Joseph Smith did have sex with Helen because of D&C 132. No, that's not what I said. If JS believes he's marrying her to raise up seed, it would stand to reason that he DID have relations or at least called "dibbs" so he'd have the first crack at her later.
HappyJackWagon Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I am going to be honest, and I don't mean to offend, but I have heard that before in varying words and I believe it is a cop-out. I believe one is perfectly capable through personal experience to come to conclusions on how they believe they should interact with their children as parents. Sure there may be some minor bumps along the way, but you have to make a determination to stand firm. Too many parents are wishy-washy and when push comes to shove they don't want to offend their children for fear that they might hate them. Thus, we have a generation of spoiled brats who believe everything is owed to them, because they were capitulated to at every turn.You're standing on shaky ground when you claim the life experience of another is invalid and that his opinion is a cop out because you don't share the same opinion when based on lesser experience. Calling something a cop-out when you have no real life experience is dismissive and naive. Once you have the life experience you may still have a different opinion and that's fine, but don't dismiss it as a copout because you can't understand it. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Are you certain he didn't? I'm not, though I think the scholarly consensus is he probably didn't, just like he "probably" didn't with Helen. Like I've said before, I'm not overly invested in the fight about whether he did or didn't have relations with Helen though I find it amusing that people are so adamant about stating emphatically that he didn't. I'm merly pointing out the silliness of that. I am not certain of anything, I have no knowledge, but I assume that people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around like him. I understand that it is possible that JS had sex with her, but there is no point to talk about that because I don't like speculations. You're not understanding my argument because all along I've allowed for the possibility that he DID and also that he DIDN'T. Good to be a reasonable possibility There are thousands of reasonable possibilities, but your possibility is not useful. A court of law doesn't care about reasonable possibilities when there is no evidence Edited June 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
BookofMormonLuvr Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 You're standing on shaky ground when you claim the life experience of another is invalid and that his opinion is a cop out because you don't share the same opinion when based on lesser experience. Calling something a cop-out when you have no real life experience is dismissive and naive. Once you have the life experience you may still have a different opinion and that's fine, but don't dismiss it as a copout because you can't understand it.To say that someone has no idea what it is like to raise kids unless you have them is equally dismissive. My wife logged many hours of child care over 12 years and spent more time with many of those kids than their parents did- but because she hasn't shot one out herself, she doesn't know how it is?Pure silliness. Being a parent isn't some guessing game sprung on you when you leave the hospital.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 I am not certain of anything, but I assume that people are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around like himSo in this scenario a husband and wife who fulfil God's command to become one flesh, multiply and replenish are guilty, and the couple that shirks theirGod given duty is innocent. Whatever floats your boat I guess.
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 So in this scenario a husband and wife who fulfil God's command to become one flesh, multiply and replenish are guilty, and the couple that shirks theirGod given duty is innocent. Whatever floats your boat I guess. LOL I simply meant that there is no evidence that JS had sex with Helen, I won´t jump to conclusions without evidence. I am open to the possibility that JS did have sex with her, but there is no point to talk about it because there is no evidence. So why is it so hard to understand that? Joseph Smith also married a 58 year old, a 56 year old, a 53 year old, and a 50 year old. Did Joseph Smith have sex with all of them? Just because he married them doesn't mean he had sex with all of them, so your argument is flawed.
Thinking Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 A court of law doesn't care about reasonable possibilities when there is no evidence. This is not a court of law. 1
Recommended Posts