let us reason together

[Gray]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

In our wicked culture that is true. It is far more than just the late 19th Century America. Our idea's of legal consent come from Victorian England. I never said it was only based on legality. In an agrarian society such as early America a young marriage age probably is an evolutionary advantage. In a modern post industrial society like ours it has many problems. 

What does any of that have to do with morality? 

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Spelling and grammar aren't strengths of mine.  Thanks for catching it.  :-)

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I expect that a dishonest person would automatically give a pass to someone whom they esteem, just as I would expect a dishonest person to automatically condemn someone whom they apriori hold in contempt.  Those who have high ethical and moral standards don't do that.  They consider people innocent until proven guilty.  They carefully examine the evidence, and are willing to find someone guilty or innocent based on adequate evidence.  That is why judges in courts of law ask potential jurors whether they can deliberate fairly based on actual evidence, whether they can set aside their biases and prejudices.

The problem with Dehlin is that he brags about not bothering to read or study material before his interviews.  Why?  Because, he says, that way his interviews will be more spontaneous.  I suppose that might be true, except that it means that he holds up ignorance as a worthy objective in approaching an issue, and I have seen that attitude many times before -- leading to decision-making based on prejudice rather than evidence.  In the end, Dehlin is projecting onto others his own dishonest manner of dealing with issues.  In essence, he is taking on the role of satan "adversary, accuser," in his interviews and conversations.  Clarity and fairness has never been his objective.

Stem, I can't remember if I ever finished my interrupted post, but if I didn't, Robert pretty much sums up my POV.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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 send an invite to you to review my tree; it has some 19,500 names in it and I will point you to the families.  

Well misunderstanding then.  I'll trust you have someone in your lines that show that a 30 something year old married a 14 year old.   

 

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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?

Again, a misunderstanding then.  I thought you had suggested that the opposite of Joseph consummating all his marriages was a fact.  The opposite would be that he consummated none of them, I figured. 

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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 used Federal Census documents to verify his conclusion.  No genealogist worth is salt relies solely on Federal Census documents to make such a claim because they know those are not accurate documents.  Based on his process I reject his claim.  Hope then alleged other scholars said the same thing, but gave no sources.  Until I see how they obtained their conclusion that marriage of young girls at fourteen I cannot respond to their allegations.  If however, they are using solely Federal Census documents there is a problem with their process.  They also need to define what is "common".  

I'm more than happy to concede that 14 year old girls got married--without even reviewing the data.  The issue was not just that she was 14.  It's not just that she married a man more than twice her age at 14.  It was that she married a man twice her age at 14 and that man had many other wives, some of them married to other men and some of them also teenagers.  To say it was ok for Joseph to marry a 14 year old hardly addresses the issue, seems to dismiss the actual problem. 

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

My knowledge is based on twenty years of working with genealogy 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 happened with 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 lost anything and nor have I.  

I've dug extensively through historic records for family history purposes too.  I'm at least somewhat aware of the shortcomings of some records.  I have an ancestry account like all members could-given to us for free.  I haven't used it too much though. 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

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.

I think a good case can be made that a 14 year old does not possess the maturity to make those kinds of decisions. There are cognitive limitations in the developing brain. They are simply not developed enough to make decisions of that magnitude. Which is why of course we have age of consent laws now. 

 

Quote

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

Glenn

I think the answer is a clear no. The fruit is bad, the tree therefore is bad as well. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Gray

[Jeanne]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

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.

 

Thank you Gray.  I appreciate you and your efforts here.  Obviously in my younger years and adult life I have relied on the scriptures so..yes..I am having a hard time.  I will try to be open and to find a "gray" area (no pun intended)  where I can at least believe in myself and any reason that I am in the world.  Many hugs, Jeanne

I apologize that because I am deaf, I cannot understand the video without cc.  Thanks so much.  If anything, I feel the spirit of your friendship and understanding.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you Gray.  I appreciate you and your efforts here.  Obviously in my younger years and adult life I have relied on the scriptures so..yes..I am having a hard time.  I will try to be open and to find a "gray" area (no pun intended)  where I can at least believe in myself and any reason that I am in the world.  Many hugs, Jeanne

I apologize that because I am deaf, I cannot understand the video without cc.  Thanks so much.  If anything, I feel the spirit of your friendship and understanding.

Thanks Jeanne. I wish you well, I didn't mean to disrupt your life. The bishop in the video is John Shelby Spong. He's a liberal (retired) Episcopalian bishop. He's written a number of books, and does not take the scriptures literally, but still maintains a close relationship with God and Jesus. You might check out some of his books. His sermons on youtube are quite inspiring and enlightening, I expect his books are as well. 

My best to you! Hugs back

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm a podcast junkie, I've listened to his interview with Brant Gardner as well as most of Dehlin's podcasts over the years. If you're implying that Brant Gardner has an accurate perspective of historical issues, and that after he was interviewed by Dehlin, that Dehlin is now informed about how things are, then I think you're showing a bias towards a particular perspective.  I wouldn't expect Dehlin to agree with Brant's perspectives just because he had an interview with him.  I don't think Brant would expect that of Dehlin either.  

I wouldn't say Dehlin is an expert on the historical issues, he definitely knows more than your average orthodox member, but thats a pretty low bar anyway. 

 

No, I am saying from what I saw there was no significant evidence of any interaction with Brant informing his comments.  No additional nuances in how he describes others' arguments, etc.. I don't require critics to agree with the faith position.  I expect someone who presents himself as a role model as well an expert in how people think and process their beliefs to present a more accurate picture and to avoid stereotypes.

Did you read Jeremy's post in the thread I linked to?  Part of the issues are pointed out there.  Jeremy is no longer a believer if the posts he makes here are an indication, but his criticisms stand whether or not a believer or a critic or the nonexistent neutral observer were to make them.  Only the last few sentences would need to be altered.  I don't know if Jeremy would view Brant's work minus the faith that informs it differently these days, I am not promoting this as how Jeremy sees things these days, but I see his post as informed by his knowledge as a historian in training.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

 The fruit is bad, the tree therefore is bad as well.

That's an insult to half the population of Utah, Arizona, Idaho, etc.

 

[Glenn101]

2 hours 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?

Faith and reason. Do you let reason, with a limited data set overpower faith? Has God told you that the Virgin Birth was not? The Gospel of John did not dismiss it. John just did not report it. Whether Mark was unaware of the Virgin Birth story is not known. His story begins with the baptism of Jesus. But the Bible assures us that Jesus is His Only Begotten Son. Just search through the New Testament. John testifies that Jesus is the Only Begotten Son. Paul affirms it in Hebrews. Those are the Biblical scriptures. Just because one or more narrators did not mention the birth story does not mean that they were not aware of it, nor that it did not happen.

"If any of you lack wisdom"........

Glenn

[Calm]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  If we respect converts who agree to align with the church after learning very little from a couple of missionaries and then agreeing to change their entire life based on this very limited information.  I think we have to also respect exmormons for doing the same thing.  I think its a double standard to do otherwise. 

It is one thing to choose to be fundamentalist in one's own beliefs, it is another to do so when one is criticizing another about their beliefs.  I will applaud anyone who has found a way to make a better life for herself and those around her.  I do not respect those who diminish or attack others' beliefs and ideals from a fundamentalist interpretation of ideas that are not fundamentalist, whether they do so from an LDS believing position or from critiquing LDS position or on a topic that has nothing to do with LDS faith.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's an insult to half the population of Utah, Arizona, Idaho, etc.

 

The fruits of polygamy are deception, manipulation, broken homes, heartbreak, and underage marriages. 

 

[Glenn101]

27 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think a good case can be made that a 14 year old does not possess the maturity to make those kinds of decisions. There are cognitive limitations in the developing brain. They are simply not developed enough to make decisions of that magnitude. Which is why of course we have age of consent laws now. 

 

I think the answer is a clear no. The fruit is bad, the tree therefore is bad as well. 

But is it morally wrong for a fourteen year old to marry?

As to your last comment, JLHPROF has already made a pithy but fairly accurate rejoinder. There are some pretty good fruits in Utah, Arizona, and Utah. I don't know if there are any members of the current Quorum of the Seventy, the Twelve, or the First Presidency that are descendants of polygamous families, but there have been in the past. The bad fruits were from people that did did not live it properly.

Glenn

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy are deception, manipulation, broken homes, heartbreak, and underage marriages. 

 

And this https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/tiny-tombstones-inside-the-flds-graveyard-for-babies-born-from-incest

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you Gray.  I appreciate you and your efforts here.  Obviously in my younger years and adult life I have relied on the scriptures so..yes..I am having a hard time.  I will try to be open and to find a "gray" area (no pun intended)  where I can at least believe in myself and any reason that I am in the world.  Many hugs, Jeanne

I apologize that because I am deaf, I cannot understand the video without cc.  Thanks so much.  If anything, I feel the spirit of your friendship and understanding.

I found this, if it helps. https://chqdaily.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/spong-dissects-virgin-birth-story-in-gospel-of-matthew/

[Storm Rider]

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've dug extensively through historic records for family history purposes too.  I'm at least somewhat aware of the shortcomings of some records.  I have an ancestry account like all members could-given to us for free.  I haven't used it too much though. 

I hope that you will use the account at Ancestry.com that all members get for free.  I really is a great tool for building on your genealogy.  Some of us get bit by the bug and can't leave it alone and others are able to ignore it happily and without remorse.  I have stayed up throughout many nights working on genealogy and have never regretted it.  

I am fascinated by discovering relations and family histories both horizontally and vertically.  I tend to lose interest if ancestors get too far back in history and spend most of my energy on the last three hundred years. Our ancestors have been in the country since well before the Revolutionary War and yet there are many immigrants of much more recent arrival in the United States.  

History, all history, is much more nuanced than most give credit.  Few of us can verify what we each did last week much less forty years ago.  It should be no surprise that the things we know about anyone over a hundred years ago is limited and only achieves very narrow episodes from subjective interpretations of the same.  Though we may not be able to capture an entire, complete picture we can flesh out the major events and gain some degree of understanding of our ancestors and those more famous such as Joseph.  

Regardless, give Ancestry.com a try - it is the best tool available today.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think people like to give Joseph a pass on the age thing with Helen, and lest we forget another of his brides was 14 as well.  It just so happened she was months younger than Helen at the time of the marriage, so she rarely gets mention. 

I think Nancy Winchester gets mentioned less because her age is uncertain, she may have been 15, and we know a lot less about her.  There isn't strong evidence she was sealed or a date for it, just two late though friendly sources, so it makes sense to include her as possible wife but not to make her the poster child of JS's depravity.  Helen has a number of personal writings that at times have been taken out of context by critics (and probably supporters as well, but I don't encounter those much) as well as some very problematic comments that are claimed by hostile sources (such as Catherine Lewis iirc).

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/14-year-old-wives-teenage-brides/

The problem, imo, is the critic often holds up the "married a 14 year old" in isolation (in the sense the age is all they are condemning and they imply that is the issue, not the plural marriage though of course most of the time it is both in their mind, so it is important in my view to address that as well if one is intent on helping someone) so it makes sense to the responder to respond in the same way, addressing the age issue by stating that while it was unusual for a young woman to marry at 14, it did happen, it was legal and it happened when the man was over 30 without the community responding it was depraved, etc. so it was likely in most cases considered as moral as well (conditions such as polygyny, financial blackmail, and other additional conditions that are separate and would be a problem no matter what age the wife might cause the community to view the marriage as immoral, but age and age difference alone doesn't seem to have drawn many comments from contemporaries).

From the link:

"It is significant that none of Joseph’s contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards. … Joseph Smith’s polygamous marriages to young women may seem difficult to understand or explain today, but in his own time such age differences were not typically an obstacle to marriage. The plural marriages were unusual, to say the least; the younger ages of the brides were much less so. Critics do not provide this perspective because they wish to shock the audience and have them judge Joseph by the standards of the modern era, rather than his own time."

FM had a couple of members who went to the census for Nauvoo the surrounding areas and compared age at marriage and age differences between husbands and wives. (I can dig up a reference later if you want)  Iirc, if you just looked at the marriages as marriages and ignore the fact that these were all the marriages of one man, the marriages were pretty much a typical cross section of the community's ages at first marriages and age differences. What made it shocking for that society was the polygynous nature of the relationship. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is one thing to choose to be fundamentalist in one's own beliefs, it is another to do so when one is criticizing another about their beliefs.  I will applaud anyone who has found a way to make a better life for herself and those around her.  I do not respect those who diminish or attack others' beliefs and ideals from a fundamentalist interpretation of ideas that are not fundamentalist, whether they do so from an LDS believing position or from critiquing LDS position or on a topic that has nothing to do with LDS faith.

This is wonderful, I completely agree and I aspire to live by this quality in my life.  Mutual respect is so important.  Trying to kindly persuade someone is the right approach, directly attacking and ridiculing can be harmful and should be avoided.  

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

The fruits of polygamy are deception, manipulation, broken homes, heartbreak, and underage marriages.

 

Utter nonsense.
That's like saying the fruits of monogamy are adultery, latchkey kids, divorce, and the Ashley Madison website.

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I found this, if it helps. https://chqdaily.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/spong-dissects-virgin-birth-story-in-gospel-of-matthew/

Thank you for this Tacenda.  Now I know what Gray was talking about.  I will open a door with hope that my philosopher is really the Son of God.  What a story!

Thanks again to Gray!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

As a genealogist with some twenty years of experience working with Federal Census documents I disagree with Fluman's premise that they can be relied upon to verify the age of individuals and/or marriage dates.  Federal Census documents are used as indicators of age, but they not reliable as stand alone documents.  The reasons are as simple as individuals giving answers for others where they guess to individuals not knowing their exact age to those who are uninterested in sharing exact information about their age.  

Further, how many marriages do we have to verify to demonstrate that the marriage of young women or girls was common?  In a single county or state how many has to be shown before one admits that these young people's marriage age was common?  

I can only tell you that I have seen it far too often for it to be abnormal, rare, or occasional event.  It happened often enough for families to celebrate the weddings and for other weddings in the same counties and states to occur a great number of times.

Lastly, states do not have laws that outline minimum ages unless people were actually marrying at those exact ages.  I don't care what a historian says, I don't speak out of ignorance of the topic, but one that works with the data almost daily.  

Good points imo,though unfortunately the census is often the only data to work with.

I think we need to define "common" first if we go that route.  I find it more useful to approach it as "acceptable" and look at what was said about those types of marriages.

edit:. I see you have already made this point about definition.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Utter nonsense.
That's like saying the fruits of monogamy are adultery, latchkey kids, divorce, and the Ashley Madison website.

Adultery is by definition not monogamy. But monogamy by and large works very well, despite outliers where it has sometimes failed. I don't know of any implementation of polygamy that was not largely disastrous. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure you read what I wrote carefully. If you had, you wouldn't have made this comment.

I believe he is saying that while our society sees 14 year olds as unable to give consent, this is not biological fact (is there something inherent in a 14 year old that prevents this...btw, aren't there some states that allow 14 year olds to give consent for abortions or am I off by a year or two or three?), but a result of how our society raises children and don't prepare them for an early adulthood.  We do know the brain isn't fully formed till mid twenties, but that may not remove the ability to consent.  Our society certainly doesn't see it that way.

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

But is it morally wrong for a fourteen year old to marry?

Yes, I think so. 

 

Quote

As to your last comment, JLHPROF has already made a pithy but fairly accurate rejoinder. There are some pretty good fruits in Utah, Arizona, and Utah. I don't know if there are any members of the current Quorum of the Seventy, the Twelve, or the First Presidency that are descendants of polygamous families, but there have been in the past. The bad fruits were from people that did did not live it properly.

Glenn

You know, one of Jesus' great great great grandmothers (actually, arguably one of his great grandfathers was as well) was raped (at least if you trust Matthew's genealogy). That does not mean that the fruits of rape are good, only that goodness can spring up from great evil. Another ancestor was a prostitute!

Polygamy of course is not rape or prostitution. But the direct consequences of polygamy as a lifestyle are negative. That does not mean that goodness cannot flower in the ashes of evil. New life often springs up out of destructive activities, but the direct results of destructive activities are not positive. 

Who do you think lived polygamy properly? The negative consequences I listed are inherent to the institution of polygamy. I would add one other consequence to polygamy - "the love of many shall wax cold". 

 

ETA: made updates

Edited September 22, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I found this, if it helps. https://chqdaily.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/spong-dissects-virgin-birth-story-in-gospel-of-matthew/

That's a great summary of the video, thanks Tacenda