let us reason together

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am so confused...is this not what we were taught..the birth story.  Then indeed, Jesus was a wonderful and regular man who was also a great philosopher.  Count me dismayed..even as an exmormon...totally dismayed.  Is there nothing I can believe in?  I have already given up Adam and Eve..and so many other things.  What dots am I not connecting that I should have any faith left at all?

Right there with you, but we can hold out hope that Jesus was chosen or given special powers I guess, because of His goodness. It's so hard to have to grow up and see things as they really are, I want to go back before when it was a fact in my mind and not something I have to weigh and determine if true or not. 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I see that you dodged the questions.  It is also evident that you rely on someone else's opinion and that you have done no research of your own to verify the claims of others.  If you cannot site the source, then you haven't got anything to say and I cannot refute their comments unless I can see how they arrived at their conclusions.  I know the historical facts based on Federal Census documents that I have read and looked at personally.  I know how often I find incidences of this same thing - it was common to the degree that it happened everywhere in the United States.  It was not limited to the south, west, east, or north.

I haven't personally done any research on this issue, I've only read historians and articles of other scholars who site research in their books & articles.  Just because you personally have found examples of these marriages happening doesn't make your research scientifically valid.  That was the question in my other thread.  What statistically valid data can you present that would contradict the data that respected historians have used?   I can look for some links to the studies they site in footnotes if that's helpful, and I will see what I can find.  I just haven't seen you produce any evidence other than your own personal experience, which if it wasn't conducted in a scientific way, then it isn't worthy of consideration.   

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Right there with you, but we can hold out hope that Jesus was chosen or given special powers I guess, because of His goodness. It's so hard to have to grow up and see things as they really are, I want to go back before when it was a fact in my mind and not something I have to weigh and determine if true or not. 

I didn't grow up in the Church. Was pretty much Agnostic for the first 20 years of my life.

Who gave you those "special powers" to see things as they really are?

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Your Presentism is showing.

I'm always mystified by the "presentism" argument.

If what Joseph was doing was okay in his time and culture, then why did he hide it?

If what you (and others) say is correct, then you would have expected Joseph to be open and honest.  "Hey everyone, I was just sealed to these other women, some of them in marriage.  While they may seem a little young, that's perfectly normal in this time and culture that we live, so I expect you to all be calm and understanding about it."

When someone hides what they are doing, even from their wife and other stalwart members of the Church, then you can argue that they were commanded by God to do it (and keep it secret) but you can't argue that it was acceptable in the "present" in which they lived.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

And most scholars believe that Mary was around 14 years old when she gave birth to our Savior AFTER being betrothed to Joseph at an even younger age.
The age argument is such a tired one and is based in nothing but the silliest of presentism.  Joseph did nothing wrong in his sealings and marriages.

How did we go from "Mary might have been around 14 years old" to "What Joseph Smith did is okay because Mary was definitely 14 years old"?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

I'm always mystified by the "presentism" argument.

If what Joseph was doing was okay in his time and culture, then why did he hide it?

If what you (and others) say is correct, then you would have expected Joseph to be open and honest.  "Hey everyone, I was just sealed to these other women, some of them in marriage.  While they may seem a little young, that's perfectly normal in this time and culture that we live, so I expect you to all be calm and understanding about it."

When someone hides what they are doing, even from their wife and other stalwart members of the Church, then you can argue that they were commanded by God to do it (and keep it secret) but you can't argue that it was acceptable in the "present" in which they lived.

The presentism argument is against the age issue.
The hiding was a result of polygamy among a community still very much puritan in its thinking. 
Two separate issues.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

It is either true or not. I am sick of it all...just sick of it.all.  Let's wake up and smell the coffee, tea..or Koolaid.  Nobody knows anything for sure anymore and we know that..all of us.

Nobody can PROVE anything for sure.  But that doesn't mean we don't know.

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Right there with you, but we can hold out hope that Jesus was chosen or given special powers I guess, because of His goodness. It's so hard to have to grow up and see things as they really are, I want to go back before when it was a fact in my mind and not something I have to weigh and determine if true or not.

I am not convinced at all that what the skeptics see are "things as they really are".
I think they are blinded by every doubt from seeing reality.  Seeing isn't believing.  Believing is seeing.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't personally done any research on this issue, I've only read historians and articles of other scholars who site research in their books & articles.  Just because you personally have found examples of these marriages happening doesn't make your research scientifically valid.  That was the question in my other thread.  What statistically valid data can you present that would contradict the data that respected historians have used?  

This has been discussed on other threads.  iirc, the average age for a woman to marry back in that time was still when they were in their early 20's.  Just because some members can point at their genealogy and say it happened in their family too, so it was common is not a good representation, IMO.  Sure it happened, but it was not the norm nor was it common.  Again, iirc, most girls who got married very young were marrying younger men too (in their 20's) and they most definitely were not marrying much older men who already had dozens of wives!

.

Edited September 22, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

How did we go from "Mary might have been around 14 years old" to "What Joseph Smith did is okay because Mary was definitely 14 years old"?

The question is a simple one.
What does GOD approve of?

Take everything else out of the equation.  God's dealings with Mary are one example to look at.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Right there with you, but we can hold out hope that Jesus was chosen or given special powers I guess, because of His goodness. It's so hard to have to grow up and see things as they really are, I want to go back before when it was a fact in my mind and not something I have to weigh and determine if true or not. 

I want to be that little girl again that was part of a Christmas play and nativity scene.  Seems like I am reliving a past that never was.  From here on out, I am just going to just try to do good in the world and trust that those things will bring me great joy.  Hugs to you Tacenda..I don't know that I can see a scripture again. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This has been discussed on other threads.  iirc, the average age for a woman to marry back in that time was still when they were in their early 20's.  Just because some members can point at their genealogy and say it happened in their family too, so it was common is not a good representation, IMO.  Sure it happened, but it was not the norm nor was it common.  Again, iirc, most girls who got married very young were marrying younger men too (in their 20's) and they most definitely were not marrying much older men who already had dozens of wives!

Thanks ALarson.  That's what I thought as well, and why I was surprised to see Storm Rider take such a strong opinion on the subject based on personal genealogical research. 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody can PROVE anything for sure.  But that doesn't mean we don't know.

I am not convinced at all that what the skeptics see are "things as they really are".
I think they are blinded by every doubt from seeing reality.  Seeing isn't believing.  Believing is seeing.

What I am seeing today is all a lie..or a truth to only the one who wrote it.  I can do that.  From here on out..I am going to write my own script and have faith and trust that I can do good.  There is nothing tangible to hold onto anymore. 

[cinepro]

I'll also point out the most important thing about "presentism" that apologists have somehow totally missed.

The idea that we shouldn't judge people that lived in past times and different cultures isn't a defense against modern criticism.  It's a form of cultural moral relativism, which in addition to being soundly rejected by the Church (which is moral absolutist), is totally ill-suited in being applied to LDS Church history in general.

The reason it is so ill-suited is because it doesn't mean that we can excuse some of the behaviors of early Church leaders that we find objectionable (marriages to young girls, racism etc.) while still lauding these men as praiseworthy and good.

It means that we are arguing that we are totally incapable of making any moral judgement about these men, for good or bad.  "Presentism" means that it is just as illogical for a modern LDS to say that Joseph Smith did something "good" as it is for a critic to say he did something "bad".  Because both are incapable of making a moral judgment about anything Joseph Smith said or did outside of the culture and time in which he lived.

"Presentism" isn't a trump card that apologists can pull out when needed, and then safely put it away and tell the world what great persons Joseph Smith or Brigham Young were.  Once you play that card, you have totally removed them from the discussion in the context of moral judgment, and they become amoral historical figures.  

So our missionaries need to stop teaching that Joseph Smith was a good person, and instead that "in the context of the culture and time in which he lived, it generally appears that Joseph Smith acted well according to the cultural morals of his time, although we can't judge him from our modern moral perspective."  Anything else is "presentist".

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I didn't grow up in the Church. Was pretty much Agnostic for the first 20 years of my life.

Who gave you those "special powers" to see things as they really are?

Excuse me for living.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I would agree with you IF Dehlin had a point.  How do I reject all that I know as a genealogist and feign shock to hear of an older man marrying a younger, significantly (whatever that means) younger, girl or woman?  I know that it was common through my own family trees.  I will concede a point based on facts, but I will not do so based on ignorance or lies.

huh?  you have men in yoru family tree that married other men's wives and also married girls as young as 14 when they were in their 30s?  Can you show me?  Provide me a Familysearch ID for such a person? 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Additionally, there is rather important difference between a sealing and a marriage.  Not a single historian or critic that I have read alleges that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with each and every woman sealed to him.  More importantly, the evidence suggests the opposite.  I am aware of statements by Joseph Smith himself that he did have sexual relations with other wives, but those statements are quite limiting in the number.  

Are you sure the opposite?  no one has said he consummated all the marriages, but it seems pretty standard fair to suggest he consummated some of them. 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

So what do we do with a marriage sealing that has no sexual component to it?  What I have done is acknowledge the sealing marriage, the fact that Joseph had sexual relations with some unknown number of his wives, and that this practice was not novel in the history of the world and specifically within the history of Judeo-Christian religion.  

When we have faith or when we feel good towards another individual or have learned to trust others humans tend to give the benefit of the doubt when allegations are made about them.  In fact, we allow them to say things to us for which others would never be allowed to say with out taking serious offense.  It is the nature of human relationships.  Do LDS do this toward their prophets and leaders?  Absolutely and without doubt.

I agree.  In many LDS minds, JOseph's actions were justified by revelation.  That's what Dehlin has suggested.  So I'm not sure why anyone has made an issue of it. 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

However, what makes Dehlin's claims so pernicious is how he attempts to paint this trust as something for which we should be ashamed. All the while, he goes about his merry way doing the same thing with his cronies and thinking he is immune to the same thing for which we are to reject.  Joseph is a target for many and allegations, criticisms, innuendos abound.  However, I will accept valid claims, but not the sniveling, slimy, comments of Dehlin and his ilk I reject when they have no merit.  

I'm not even sure what you are talking about?  Dehlin or the notion that Joseph's marrying of many women, including teenagers and other men's wives is if not applied to Joseph and revelation thought to be a despicable thing. 

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I want to be that little girl again that was part of a Christmas play and nativity scene.  Seems like I am reliving a past that never was.  From here on out, I am just going to just try to do good in the world and trust that those things will bring me great joy.  Hugs to you Tacenda..I don't know that I can see a scripture again. 

This is just a hypothesis, it's probably wrong, and I don't have the "special powers" that The Sometimes Saint, thinks I think I have.

Maybe it was in God's plan to have the internet happen, and to have our hearts broken with some facts or warts in the church and reading about Jesus. 

It may or may not be a test or a way to really prove our faith. I don't know.

I think my life goes better with belief in Him. I hope that He is who the New Testament says He is. 

 

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm always mystified by the "presentism" argument.

If what Joseph was doing was okay in his time and culture, then why did he hide it?

If what you (and others) say is correct, then you would have expected Joseph to be open and honest.  "Hey everyone, I was just sealed to these other women, some of them in marriage.  While they may seem a little young, that's perfectly normal in this time and culture that we live, so I expect you to all be calm and understanding about it."

When someone hides what they are doing, even from their wife and other stalwart members of the Church, then you can argue that they were commanded by God to do it (and keep it secret) but you can't argue that it was acceptable in the "present" in which they lived.

I'm calling the use of presentism in this case a way to dismiss the issue.  Because we can look at historic records and see that girls married when they were 14 at some point, does not even come close to address the notion that a 30 something year old not only married a 14 year old, which is what they are all trying to say was ok, but that he being married to other women, and to other men's wives at that time, also married a 14 year old.  That simply was not at all acceptable.  That Joseph kept it from everyone, and as many have argued, even from Emma when he married Alger, shows it was something that was seen as despicable in his time and culture. 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't personally done any research on this issue, I've only read historians and articles of other scholars who site research in their books & articles.  Just because you personally have found examples of these marriages happening doesn't make your research scientifically valid.  That was the question in my other thread.  What statistically valid data can you present that would contradict the data that respected historians have used?   I can look for some links to the studies they site in footnotes if that's helpful, and I will see what I can find.  I just haven't seen you produce any evidence other than your own personal experience, which if it wasn't conducted in a scientific way, then it isn't worthy of consideration.   

People, when you are talking about referencing something, the correct word to use is cite, not "site."

[cinepro]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This has been discussed on other threads.  iirc, the average age for a woman to marry back in that time was still when they were in their early 20's.  Just because some members can point at their genealogy and say it happened in their family too, so it was common is not a good representation, IMO.  Sure it happened, but it was not the norm nor was it common.  Again, iirc, most girls who got married very young were marrying younger men too (in their 20's) and they most definitely were not marrying much older men who already had dozens of wives!

.

It should also be pointed out that there is a critical problem that will present itself in any polygamous community:

At some point, there will be far too few women of marriageable age for the men to marry.

When this happens, the community must find a way to fix the imbalance.  They can either reduce the number of men of marriageable age, or increase the number of women of marriageable age.

Obviously, LDS communities decreased the number of eligible men by sending them on missions.  Modern polygamous communities just kick out the younger men.

The number of eligible women was increased by trying to bring in converts, and by lowering the age so as time goes on, younger and younger women would be needed to be taken as wives. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It should also be pointed out that there is a critical problem that will present itself in any polygamous community:

At some point, there will be far too few women of marriageable age for the men to marry.

When this happens, the community must find a way to fix the imbalance.  They can either reduce the number of men of marriageable age, or increase the number of women of marriageable age.

Obviously, LDS communities decreased the number of eligible men by sending them on missions.  Modern polygamous communities just kick out the younger men.

The number of eligible women was increased by trying to bring in converts, and by lowering the age so as time goes on, younger and younger women would be needed to be taken as wives. 

Except for the relatively brief period of the Mormon reformation in the 1850s, there was never really a problem with imbalance in pioneer-era Utah as, over time, fewer and fewer people in the Church practiced plural marriage. It was not required that all do it. 

[Mystery Meat]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I certainly meant no offense to anyone particularly not you about your wife.  Of course I don't know her.  I'm curious if there is anyone she has endorsed since the Church has stopped polygamy who practices polygamy? 

Don't get me wrong.  I dont' think it's a bad thing or anything.  I'm just saying it's a thing.  There are plenty of members who either dismiss Joseph's practice as nothing bad, or completely stay away from information about the whole thing, and there are those who justify it because he was a prophet.  In fact I don't know any member who doesn't do this.  It seems impossible to escape.  In the case of your wife, it seems she's already convinced he's a prophet, so any polygamy had to be justified by him receiving revelation to practice it.  Again, I'm not saying that's a wrong thing--just that it's a thing.  Now if I'm way off, let me know.  I certainly don't mean to offend. 

So, I think the whole premise is skewed. There are a lot of things that Prophets of God do under God's authority that I would otherwise have serious issues with. Nephi straight up beheaded Laban. Samuel killed a POW because Saul spared his life. Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his own son. Even Jesus himself overturned some tables and physically threw people out of the temple. I am sure given some of the more popular (today) teachings he gave seem to contradict this behavior. Their actions are only justified and okay IF they were done under proper and righteous authority.

Polygamy is a head scratcher for me on a very fundamental level. It conflicts with my contemporary value system. But that conflict is only part of the evaluation process. I need to understand if the commandment came from God. 

For me and people like me, we can logically read the scriptures and see a pattern where God's laws often conflict with societal values at the time the law was given or practiced. And so, while I think it is okay for that conflict to raise questions and potential concern, as previously mentioned, however, the conflict doesn't decide the issue, nor can it because the Lord's ways are not my ways, and certainly not the ways of society or mankind in general, as evidenced by the scriptures. Therefore, I can step back and rationally question my own concerns and questions. For example, as I previously mentioned polygamy and even some of the ways it was practiced among Mormons and early leaders cause knee jerk concern, I can readily acknowledge that it wouldn't be the first time that God gave a hard law that conflicted with societal values (both prior and present). After rationally seeing both sides of the argument, I can then go and pray and receive an answer from God (such an answer cannot be deduced by reason, but only through faith and the Spirit). 

And for the record you might be surprised what that answer was/is.

So, it is not a dismissal. It is an evaluation. Yes, the fact that a prophet introduced certain concepts weighs into the process. If you are being fair it absolutely has to. The question is was the problematic issue from God. No amount of reason, no amount of heavy reading and no amount of factual analysis can reveal that. Only God himself can do that.

For the record, no offense was intended on your part and none was received on mine. I just thought your reasoning and analysis was a little off and so wanted to chime in.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Mystery Meat

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

huh?  you have men in yoru family tree that married other men's wives and also married girls as young as 14 when they were in their 30s?  Can you show me?  Provide me a Familysearch ID for such a person? 

Are you sure the opposite?  no one has said he consummated all the marriages, but it seems pretty standard fair to suggest he consummated some of them. 

I agree.  In many LDS minds, JOseph's actions were justified by revelation.  That's what Dehlin has suggested.  So I'm not sure why anyone has made an issue of it. 

I'm not even sure what you are talking about?  Dehlin or the notion that Joseph's marrying of many women, including teenagers and other men's wives is if not applied to Joseph and revelation thought to be a despicable thing. 

Hello Stemelbow, 

1)  You changed the goal line - the topic I was addressing was the allegation that it was uncommon, an undefined term, for girls the age of 14 to marry.  I was not addressing Joseph's multiple wives and their marital state.  Now, if you would like to review my genealogy data it is found on ancestry.com.  If you have an account I will gladly send you an invite to you to review my tree; it has some 19,500 names in it and I will point you to the families.  

2)  I don't see a conflict - you have said that Joseph had sexual relations with some of his sealed wives and I stated that same thing.  Is there a problem here I cannot see?

3)  The issue was that Joseph had the temerity to marry, the shock and horror, a fourteen year old girl.  That was the point I was addressing - I have seen far too many girls get married at fourteen in the US.  People are hanging their hat the term "common" without defining it.  For me, if it is uncommon than it means it rarely, if ever, happens.  The scholar cited he used Federal Census documents to verify his conclusions.  No genealogist worth their salt relies solely on Federal Census documents to verify such a claim because they know those are not accurate documents.  Based on his process alone I reject his claim.  User Hope then alleged other scholars said the same thing, but gave no sources.  Until I see how scholars arrived at their conclusion that marriage of young girls at fourteen was not common I cannot respond.  If however, they are using solely Federal Census documents there is a major problem with their process.  More importantly, they need to define what they mean by the term "common".  

My knowledge and my conclusions are based on twenty years of working with genealogical documents.  This experience may skew my deductions because I notice when marriages happen and the ages of those involved.  The mere fact that I noticed one today in my work supports (in my mind and thus the skewing I am admitting) my conclusion.  It is undeniable that young women married with a degree of regularity in history.  This is why we need to define what "common" actually means.  Without a clear definition there may or may not be a disagreement.

I think I know what you are talking about.  Sorry that you seem unsure of what I have said.  Thankfully, you have not lost anything and nor have I.  

Edited September 22, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

14 year olds cannot give meaningful consent. As I said before, that was not well understood in the 19th century. But we understand it now and can say that it's wrong, even if understandable that previous generations didn't fully grok this.

So, on what standard do you state that fourteen year old girls cannot give "meaningful consent." First of all, how do you define that term?

A girl could get married at the age of fourteen in South Carolina up until 1956. I had an aunt (from North Carolina) that got married there and she and my uncle raised a bunch of children and had a successful marriage by all of the normal metrics. She was totally bummed out when she went to get her driver's license and they told her to come back when she was sixteen. By all of the accounts that I have heard from my aunts and uncles, she knew what she wanted and settled in and was a good wife and mother. I realize that this is just one case.

Marriage at fourteen and fifteen may have not been the norm in any age, but it was definitely not unheard of nor frowned upon. I looked back in my own family tree and a couple of generations ago there were two other marriages that involved a fourteen and a fifteen year old woman.

Was my uncle and my forebears morally wrong to marry women so young?

As to the present controversy, I think that maybe people are bringing to much emotion to the table via the polygamy route and looking at anything connected with a jaundiced eye. There is no evidence that there was any sexual relations between Joseph Smith and Helen Mar Kimball. If Joseph had lived long enough to go with the rest of the Church to Utah, maybe things would have changed, but Helen would also have been older.

Which gets back to the main point. Was the doctrine of plural wives a commandment from God?

Glenn

[Gray]

48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am so confused...is this not what we were taught..the birth story.  Then indeed, Jesus was a wonderful and regular man who was also a great philosopher.  Count me dismayed..even as an exmormon...totally dismayed.  Is there nothing I can believe in?  I have already given up Adam and Eve..and so many other things.  What dots am I not connecting that I should have any faith left at all?

Well, the information I laid out is what I believe to be the most reasonable. That does not obligate anyone to lose faith in that story.

However, assume for a minute that the virgin birth story is something the author of Matthew came up with. Does that have any bearing on whether or not Jesus himself is the Messiah? I don't think so. None of the gospels were written by eye witnesses, remember. A lot of the stories about his life are likely not literally true, but they perhaps speak to deeper truths about the nature of Jesus.

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So a 14 year old who was engaged (probably to a much older man according to some scholars) being chosen by God to give birth to God's son isn't relevant to how God views the readiness of 14 year olds to be a wife and mother?
Shouldn't God have been selecting a single adult woman, not to mention condemning both Josephs for their 14 year old marriages?  Instead of giving them continued revelations and blessings.

Jesus came ultimately came down from the adulterous union of King David and Bathsheba. You might remember that David arranged for Bathsheba's husband to die. Who is to say that something holy can't come from something unholy?

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

The danger of taking a skeptics approach to scripture.  Faith becomes a thing of naught and all truth is called into doubt.

Faith in what? If you literalize the scriptures, you miss the whole thing.