let us reason together

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 you have men in yoru family tree that married other men's wives

How are you defining "married"?  Are you talking about a temporal marriage, or a sealing marriage.  

Most enemies of the church pretend to be uninformed about the difference, but can we assume you do know the difference.  I strongly suggest any time you use the phrase "married another man's wife", in this forum that you specify EXACTLY what you are saying, so that you are not included among the ignorant and uninformed.

Edited September 22, 2016 by cdowis

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 I think Brian Hales takes the position that these marriages were somewhat common, but I think he's an outlier on this issue.

Calm:  won't let me write outside box

Hales from link above:

" Matrimonies for females who were fourteen years of age were eyebrow-raising but not scandalous in the 1840s."

[Calm]

3 hours 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.
 

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

Since we don't know Mary's age but can only guess, I don't see it as appropriate to use her possible age as evidence.  Perhaps there was something that delayed her marriage, she was ill, her period didn't show up until later for some reason, her family was traveling, she was caring for a sick relative or she just happened to be older than many of her contemporaries.  It is not as if all young women at the time had to get married at 14 or they were banned from the option later in their lives.

[Storm Rider]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I think that is a good point.  Given that the states defined the legal standards for an acceptable age to marry I find a high degree of dissonance between what is actually determined acceptable by the state and the present day ridicule of critics for the fact that there were citizens actually doing what was defined as acceptable.

Granted, this only narrowly addresses the age of a very few of Joseph Smith's plural wives.  It does not address that polygamy actually occurred among the saints.  It is fair for critics to attack the practice of polygamy based on then current social norms; however, the moment a critic brings up a Judeo-Christian religious complaint I see a huge problem that is either based on their own blindness or ignorance of that same history.  The Bible is full of acceptable examples of God's chosen leaders and people having more than one wife and having more than one woman in a conjugal relationship.  

Of course, the real heart of the accusations is to paint Joseph Smith as some form of sexual pervert or predator.  It does not take long for anyone to study his life to sense that accusation is baseless at best and at worst, a gross mischaracterization. 

[mong00se]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I think our society does view it that way.  You need only think back to when you were that age, or look to your kids who are that age.  They exercise very poor judgement, and often.  

This particular situation is further muddied by Joseph's promises to her.  Read Helen Mar Kimballs journal here on BYU's website: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/11-appendix-one

This is from her journa regarding what Joseph said in his proposal:

“If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.  This promise was so great that I will-ingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward."

More from the quote:

"None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart—when Joseph asked her if she was willing, she replied “If Helen is willing I have nothing more to say.” She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come as the sun was to rise and set; but it was all hidden from me."

It's hard to argue that a 14 year old could give proper, thoughtful consent to such a proposition.  Especially when tasked with weighing the future salvation of your posterity.  

 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Since we don't know Mary's age but can only guess, I don't see it as appropriate to use her possible age as evidence.  Perhaps there was something that delayed her marriage, she was ill, her period didn't show up until later for some reason, her family was traveling, she was caring for a sick relative or she just happened to be older than many of her contemporaries.  It is not as if all young women at the time had to get married at 14 or they were banned from the option later in their lives.

I agree that we don't "know", but when you hear hoofbeats you think horses before zebras.
All the limited evidence points to her age being around 14.  Really no evidence other than mere possibility points elsewhere.
Between the established traditions of her time and culture AND the apocryphal texts stating that those traditions were followed we have no evidence to think otherwise.

[Jeanne]

27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

How are you defining "married"?  Are you talking about a temporal marriage, or a sealing marriage.  

Most enemies of the church pretend to be uninformed about the difference, but can we assume you do know the difference.  I strongly suggest any time you use the phrase "married another man's wife", in this forum that you specify EXACTLY what you are saying, so that you are not included among the ignorant and uninformed.

Temporal marriage or sealing marriage?  The question that comes to my mind is..did it matter to Joseph?  A relatively young and viral man in his 30's..if he could consumate a marriage of either..would it matter?  Call me ignorant and uninformed.

[Calm]

1 hour 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. 

Age of consent laws seem to me to have come into being long before there was knowledge about brain development and the ages have been raised without appealing to scientific, empirical measures of brain development as far as I can tell, but are more based on society's experience with how those of that age currently make decisions, respond to influences, etc.  I would be very interested to see how one can measure consent from brain functions and how this is shown developing over time and where it crosses into the area of sufficient reasoning ability available.  We know the brain isn't fully developed till early-mid twenties, but we also allow for a long of list of various consents, including marriage, to be legally made by those whose brain are not fully developed, so are we wrong in this?  Should we reduce everyone to a minor status until their brain shows full growth, functioning? (And is growth a good measure of capability?). Is there some way we can point to empirical measures of mental/brain function and be able to say 'probability suggests this person is developed enough to be capable of consent'?  And even if we focus on brain development, doesn't this ignore environmental influences, such as training to analyze choices, exposure to other ideas, level of pressure in immediate society to act in certain ways and the person's temperament affecting how much s/he can resist such social pressure.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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

This could be claimed as the fruit of making polygyny illegal and in no way is there any indication that LDS polygyny found incest any more acceptable than out society today.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[mong00se]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

This could be claimed as the fruit of making polygyny illegal.  

That seems like quite the logic jump, not sure I understand that comment.  

[Storm Rider]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Temporal marriage or sealing marriage?  The question that comes to my mind is..did it matter to Joseph?  A relatively young and viral man in his 30's..if he could consumate a marriage of either..would it matter?  Call me ignorant and uninformed.

Hello Jeanne,

I think the distinction is that Joseph was sealed to his plural wives.  Historians do know that Joseph Smith had conjugal relationships with some of this wives.  No one knows the number, but you will remember that at this time in Nauvoo the concept of being sealed to great leaders of the Church was performed for both men and women.  The exact time of this form of sealing must be verified by those far more expert on this topic than I am, but the reason I bring it up is to introduce the idea that being sealed to another was sought after and desired.  Some of Joseph's wives where sealed only him without ever living as man and wife.  

Some of the women who claimed to have bore children by Joseph Smith have been proven wrong.  Their DNA lineage verifies that none of them are related to Joseph Smith.  

To Joseph it matter a great deal whether he was sealed to an individual or simply had a temporal marriage.  They were not and are not viewed as equivalent.  

You strike to the heart of the issue - was Joseph only interested in a sexual conquest.  It is clear that he was not in my opinion.  If it were so, we would have seen far more progeny if we use Joseph & Emma's progeny as evidence there were no problems with having offspring. 

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I think so. 

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". 

You did state you believe that it is immoral for a fourteen girls to get married. And I guess that we probably should leave it there because we would be just arguing opinions.

As to the polygamy bad fruits thing, there is also a difference of opinions also. Some of those different opinions actually come from people who have studied the issue a bit. One such person feels that polygamy was actually liberating to many of the women who were involved.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

As to the polygamy bad fruits thing, there is also a difference of opinions also. Some of those different opinions actually come from people who have studied the issue a bit.

Perhaps we should come up with a new terminology.
A number of times certain posters on this board like to accuse us of "mansplaining" when we state an opinion on women's issues in the Church.

Perhaps we can label all these opinions as "monosplaining" - people who have never been involved in any way with polygamy but seem to think they understand its unavoidable evils so well.
Yeah, there is a lot of monosplaining going on here.  Perhaps we could get some polygamists to drop by.  I'm sure their opinions and experiences would be listened to objectively.

Edited September 22, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

So hopefully, while you may disagree with my viewing Dehlin as fundamentalist and criticizing him because of this approach in his criticism, you understand I am not doing so because of a double standard.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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. 

Polygamy has been around for eons, are you stating you have analyzed sufficiently all these manifestations and found them to be disastrous for their societies or do you mean something more specific? 

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

The theory that every other religious believer just doesn't believe as much as LDS do (or in the same way) is certainly an interesting one, but I haven't seen much support for it.  I've talked with true-believing Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Catholics, Muslims, and numerous others, (and seen a few FLDS bear their testimonies) and they certainly seemed to have testimonies every bit as firm as those I hear shared in LDS services. 

But ultimately there's no way to definitively answer the question or compare experiences; after all, we only have words to use, and even if they use the exact same words as LDS, they could be describing something different (and less true). 

But it's a little disingenuous to present it as a choice between Joseph Smith and Sam Harris.  For many, "neither" seems to be a perfectly valid option.  But I can understand why someone might feel the need to frame it that way; if current events teach us anything, it's that when you don't have good argument in favor of a proposition, your last best hope is to try and get people to fear the alternative.

I can certainly agree with most of what you say here, cinepro, and the instant solution is to be more respectful and understanding of the plethora of traditions which we encounter -- even if we are wedded to one in particular.  That is the anthropological approach, which tends to see even academics as bound by ritual and tradition, equally as much as any pietistic religionists.  However, not all belief traditions are equally broadminded and kind, some being very narrow and exclusive.  Moreover, I cannot agree that we have only words to use (and Mark Bukowski rightly shows the limitations they have), since the ineffable wonder of some religious or cosmic experiences is beyond description.

I am a great believer in making choices and being content with them, come what may.  That is why I have recommended to californiaboy that he follow his conscience and not worry overmuch what someone else thinks.  However, that does not mean that there are not crucial questions of right & wrong at stake, nor that everything is just relative, but rather that the epistemological question of how we know anything can pose great difficulty.  And, you are right, fear is not the best motivation.  Yet, the consequences of giving oneself over to a Manson Family group experience might be something we should fear, and an object-lesson for our children.  Not all alternatives are equal.

Joseph Smith asserted a broad understanding of truth which appeals to me.  Unfortunately, not all traditions return the favor.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Jeanne,

I think the distinction is that Joseph was sealed to his plural wives.  Historians do know that Joseph Smith had conjugal relationships with some of this wives.  No one knows the number, but you will remember that at this time in Nauvoo the concept of being sealed to great leaders of the Church was performed for both men and women.  The exact time of this form of sealing must be verified by those far more expert on this topic than I am, but the reason I bring it up is to introduce the idea that being sealed to another was sought after and desired.  Some of Joseph's wives where sealed only him without ever living as man and wife.  

Some of the women who claimed to have bore children by Joseph Smith have been proven wrong.  Their DNA lineage verifies that none of them are related to Joseph Smith.  

To Joseph it matter a great deal whether he was sealed to an individual or simply had a temporal marriage.  They were not and are not viewed as equivalent.  

You strike to the heart of the issue - was Joseph only interested in a sexual conquest.  It is clear that he was not in my opinion.  If it were so, we would have seen far more progeny if we use Joseph & Emma's progeny as evidence there were no problems with having offspring. 

I believe he practiced natural child birth. I also don't understand him marrying house maids and girls he had know since a younger age.

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello Jeanne,

I think the distinction is that Joseph was sealed to his plural wives.  Historians do know that Joseph Smith had conjugal relationships with some of this wives.  No one knows the number, but you will remember that at this time in Nauvoo the concept of being sealed to great leaders of the Church was performed for both men and women.  The exact time of this form of sealing must be verified by those far more expert on this topic than I am, but the reason I bring it up is to introduce the idea that being sealed to another was sought after and desired.  Some of Joseph's wives where sealed only him without ever living as man and wife.  

Some of the women who claimed to have bore children by Joseph Smith have been proven wrong.  Their DNA lineage verifies that none of them are related to Joseph Smith.  

To Joseph it matter a great deal whether he was sealed to an individual or simply had a temporal marriage.  They were not and are not viewed as equivalent.  

You strike to the heart of the issue - was Joseph only interested in a sexual conquest.  It is clear that he was not in my opinion.  If it were so, we would have seen far more progeny if we use Joseph & Emma's progeny as evidence there were no problems with having offspring. 

Thanks for your clarification.  In my reply to the previous post..I had forgotten that Joseph was also sealed to men.  I respect your opinion though I disagree somewhat.  A lot of good women to be sealed to..why pick a 14 year old with her whole life ahead of her...and have her be responsible for the salvation of her parents?

Edited September 22, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, mong00se said:

I think our society does view it that way.  You need only think back to when you were that age, or look to your kids who are that age. 

 

I would not disagree for the most part though I have known a number of 14 year olds whose decisions I would trust much more than I would trust a number of adults....but that does not deal with either the fact we do not currently raise our children in such a way to prepare them for making such decisions at that age (if any age, but that is another topic) so it may not be sufficiently biologically dependent nor does it engage what I pointed out and that is our society assumes minors, including 14 year olds from what I can find, have the capability to make life altering decisions that may be as important as marriage to them and where they are likely under extremes of pressure from outside influences (parents, teachers, boyfriends, society's expectations of them) to make certain choices. So why are our 14 year olds allowed in some states to get birth control and abortions or refuse them without parental consent and at times are even allowed not to inform at least one of their parents if they are considered by our society as incapable of making adult enough decisions?

specifics of Helen Mar Kimball's case should be in another thread if you are interested.  I am not personally arguing 14 year olds are capable, I am arguing about how past and present societies view their capability.

If it matters, I think Helen's case was one of the many mistakes associated with the practice of plural marriage in the LDS faith.  I don't believe plural marriage itself was a mistake, but like many, many commandments we humans screw up even with the best of attentions.  Her father should have been satisfied with himself being adopted into Joseph's family and females should have been allowed, imo, to have the option to be sealed as daughters if it was appropriate for men to be sealed as sons at the time.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

8 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. 

The same questions confront a modern Jew, since polygyny among Jews was perfectly legal for thousands of years, and then it was not.  One may not contract plural marriage in Israel today, regardless of one's religion (and polygyny is legal within Islam), and regardless of one's deep respect for the Patriarchs of Israel.  Yet I have not encountered this terrible feeling of discomfort with polygyny among modern Jews.  They simply put that and levirate marriage aside, without all the emotional presentist nonsense one finds among some Mormons and anti-Mormons today. There may be a place for true emotional response to modern FLDS marriage practices, or indeed for the modern practice of child-marriage in India, but we ought to put aside the deep recriminations for past practices.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ok, lets ignore what informed LDS historians are saying about their research, and lets visit a grave yard and make an uniformed observation that validates our preconceived notion.   Gotta love confirmation bias! 

Is that "uniformed" or "uninformed"?

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, mong00se said:

That seems like quite the logic jump, not sure I understand that comment.  

Have other societies that practice polygyny been noted for graveyards full of victims of incest?  What allows for such incest to occur at such a high undiscovered until too late rate in that community?  Is it not that they have withdrawn from mainstream society and live a very hidden and isolated life?  And is not one of the likely main reasons, if not the main reason the community grew isolated, was because polygyny was illegal and they had to hide what they were doing or risk being fined or put imprisoned?

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I also don't understand him marrying house maids and girls he had know since a younger age.

In rural communities (at least compared to what we think of as urban), it would have been difficult to marry someone from the community that you had not known for a long time.  Would it really make a difference if he had married young women who he had only known for a year or so in your view?  He was generally choosing his wives or wives were being chosen for him among his close friends.  Any young women would thus been those he had known since a younger age.  

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 A lot of good women to be sealed to..why pick a 14 year old with her whole life ahead of her...and have her be responsible for the salvation of her parents?

Because her father, one of his closest friends asked him to.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

Because her father, one of his closest friends asked him to.

Do you have a reference that this was so? I can't believe I hadn't heard this before.