New First Vision Video

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Either you haven't studied or read how Emma felt about polygamy, or you're asking questions you know the answers to.  Did she still love Joseph even after all he did that involved the lies and deceit?  Yes, I believe she did.

That doesn't change how she felt about him being with other women and girls though.  

Why do you believe she hated polygamy?

I think that she didn't like polygamy.

I think you probably dislike it as well.

I was particular interested on what she thought about Joseph's character. 

I view discussions like this as an attempt to impeach the character of Joseph more than just a discussion on the merits of the doctrine of polygamy.

 

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I view discussions like this as an attempt to impeach the character of Joseph more than just a discussion on the merits of the doctrine of polygamy.

In many cases I see such discussions as people seeking an unreasonable level of validation of their reasons for leaving or rejecting the Church. They have only concluded that Joseph Smith was a liar and adulterer rather than the prophet of the restoration, but they want recognition for knowing that he was, or that they know what they are talking about from a historical perspective, but this cannot be done with historical integrity.

Edited March 8, 2017 by CV75

[carbon dioxide]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So i think it's reasonable to say that JS would not be seen favorably today if he lived in this era and did everything exactly as he did in the mid 1800's (just like it's reasonable to say that if we lived in his era, and did everything exactly as we do today, we would not be seen favorably). 

I think Joseph would have done a lot of things different if he was living in our modern society today.  Much of the problems of persecution that existed then would not exist today.  There would not be cases of LDS being chased out of their homes and crossing in handcarts today.  They would be protected by the law and have mini-vans and SUV rather than handcarts.  The whole age thing is totally off base.  Why do people think that age 18 is a magical age?  Why is age difference that important.  The fact that some people might find some of those issue to be "gross" or they have that "ick" factor does not necessarily mean it was wrong.  The main reason people should not get married very young today is not because its "immoral" or "wrong" but it seriously retards future options in life in regards of education and career.  If one wants a life of poverty, getting married very young is a good step forward in obtaining that goal.  However if one is living in 1835 and they are poor, education and career options are limited, getting married at 16 or 21 really is not that big of a deal.

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I think that she didn't like polygamy.

I think you probably dislike it as well.

I was particular interested on what she thought about Joseph's character. 

I view discussions like this as an attempt to impeach the character of Joseph more than just a discussion on the merits of the doctrine of polygamy.

Not really.  You are the one who brought in the term "sexual predator". 

I believe polygamy was not from God but from man.  Does that mean these men were all bad or completely evil?  For me the answer to that is no.  But I do believe it was wrong.  Especially the manner in which it was lived in Nauvoo.  There was too much deceit and too many lies involved for it to be something that was righteous, IMO.  

I imagine that's why Emma didn't like it as well.  (That and the fact that her husband was with other girls and women.)

Edited March 8, 2017 by JulieM

[Gray]

Whatever people thought of marriages of young girls to older men in the 19th century, it's viewed as totally unacceptable today. 

Should there be a church policy on this? As far as I know, there is not, other than the general advice not to date until 16. Should the church take a moral stance on underage marriage, in regions where it is legal? Or do marriages of older church leaders to young teens in church history make taking that stance too uncomfortable?

Edited March 8, 2017 by Gray

[longview]

5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The main reason people should not get married very young today is not because its "immoral" or "wrong" but it seriously retards future options in life in regards of education and career.  If one wants a life of poverty, getting married very young is a good step forward in obtaining that goal.  However if one is living in 1835 and they are poor, education and career options are limited, getting married at 16 or 21 really is not that big of a deal.

Disagree.  Two can live cheaply as one.  Couples just need to be proactive about their living arrangements and jobs and budget and expenses.  They should not marry if they are immature or have dysfunctional issues.  Most are wise enough to seek counseling and advice from both sets of parents or professionals.  We hear stories of the woman putting her husband thru medical school while working.  Stuff like that.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think Joseph would have done a lot of things different if he was living in our modern society today.  Much of the problems of persecution that existed then would not exist today.  There would not be cases of LDS being chased out of their homes and crossing in handcarts today.  They would be protected by the law and have mini-vans and SUV rather than handcarts.  The whole age thing is totally off base.  Why do people think that age 18 is a magical age?  Why is age difference that important.  The fact that some people might find some of those issue to be "gross" or they have that "ick" factor does not necessarily mean it was wrong.  The main reason people should not get married very young today is not because its "immoral" or "wrong" but it seriously retards future options in life in regards of education and career.  If one wants a life of poverty, getting married very young is a good step forward in obtaining that goal.  However if one is living in 1835 and they are poor, education and career options are limited, getting married at 16 or 21 really is not that big of a deal.

I think that one of the most important concepts to be familiar with, when trying to compare history with our lives today, was written by the novelist L. P. Hartley-

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."      

Edited March 8, 2017 by bluebell

[Ouagadougou]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Not really.  You are the one who brought in the term "sexual predator". 

I believe polygamy was not from God but from man.  Does that mean these men we all bad or completely evil?  For me the answer to that is no.  But I do believe it was wrong.  Especially the manner in which it was lived in Nauvoo.  There was too much deceit and too many lies involved for it to be something that was righteous, IMO.  

I imagine that's why Emma didn't like it as well.  (That and the fact that her husband was with other girls and women.)

It's not just that...but so much deeper.  If you believe in polygamy, then: You believe God is a polygamist, who demanded that his heavenly order of marriage be implemented-- and sent an angel with a flaming sword to enforce it by threatening JS with destruction.

This is the same God who values freedom of choice as a crucial part of the plan of salvation, but sends armed angels to force others to engage in such a confusing/disgusting practice, IMO.  

And, finally, the church still practices spiritual polygamy and believes God is a polygamous God...and that some will practice polygamy in the next life.  Two apostles today are sealed to more than one wife...

 

Edited March 8, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Whatever people thought of marriages of young girls to older men in the 19th century, it's viewed as totally unacceptable today.

Should there be a church policy on this? As far as I know, there is not, other than the general advice not to date until 16. Should the church take a moral stance on underage marriage, in regions where it is legal? Or do marriages of older church leaders to young teens in church history make taking that stance too uncomfortable?

With the emphasis put on following the law (at least prior to SSM) the Church has established an age policy - whatever the state says is legal.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

It's not just that...but so much deeper.  If you believe in polygamy, then: You believe God is a polygamist, who demanded that his heavenly order of marriage be implemented-- and sent an angel with a flaming sword to enforce it by threatening JS with destruction.

Yes.  I believe this.  Although we don't really know if the threat was for lack of obedience or lack of polygamy.  Same result either way I guess.

This is the same God who values freedom of choice as a crucial part of the plan of salvation, but sends armed angels to practice such a confusing/disgusting practice, IMO.  

Not at all.  I don't see why establishing a consequence for disobedience is seen as a removal of agency.  Don't all parents tell their children to eat their vegetables or go to bed without dessert?  Kid's choice.  We tell our kid that all the time - "make a choice".

And, finally, the church still practices spiritual polygamy and believes God is a polygamous God...and that some will practice polygamy in the next life.  Two apostles today are sealed to more than one wife...

Yes, they are.  But according to early prophets that doesn't meet the requirement of living polygamy.

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see why establishing a consequence for disobedience is seen as a removal of agency.  Don't all parents tell their children to eat their vegetables or go to bed without dessert?  Kid's choice.  We tell our kid that all the time - "make a choice".

A parent telling his/her children to eat their vegetables is much different than an angel with a flaming sword threatening a man with destruction.  Some people might have strict parents, but pulling a knife out and telling your kids you will kill them (if they don't eat up) is NOT good parenting, IMO. 😀

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

You seem to be attached to that label "sexual predator".  There's a lot in between being loyal to your spouse and cheating on them that doesn't include being a sexual predator.  It's not that extreme.

Helen's feelings and views changed over the years.  I love reading her writings and think she was an incredible woman.  She did seem to feel like a victim at first or that she'd been tricked.  But her feelings evolved.  

I'm sure you know that just because a victim doesn't complain, that doesn't mean they may still be a victim.  I'm not saying this is the case here, but just pointing that out.

Given a lot of criticism attached to the young age of some of his wives uses terms like "sexual predator", I suspect he just assumed you felt the same way, incorrectly as you have now clarified.

we need to be careful about judging Helen feeling like a victim at first.  The dance thing that is used as an example ignores actual context (that particular dance had "blacklegs" attending and her dad didn't want her brother to go either, it had nothing to do with her being sealed p,us she attended a number of social activities before and after that date, including dances and performing in theatre and choir.

Another report is her sharing her feelings with an acquaintance who was not as far as I can tell someone she would normally confide in.  This person became an anti Mormon lecturer...maybe just a writer, need to doublecheck that later, so there was a financial/attention getting benefit to upping the drama.

She did suffer from depression and expressed some negative feelings in poetry iirc while she had a significant illness, but this was after her marriage to Whitney iirc and might even have been postpartum in part.

I have no doubt all the women struggled at some time, just like we do in monogamous marriages.  We need to be careful to separate out what was caused by plural marriage and what was caused by life.  I think we both inflate and discount too much.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

A parent telling his/her children to eat their vegetables is much different than an angel with a flaming sword threatening a man with destruction.  Some people might have strict parents, but pulling a knife out and telling your kids you will kill them (if they don't eat up) is NOT good parenting, IMO. 😀

Some sins have greater punishments.
If your kid kills someone the death penalty might be required.
If your kid robs a bank jail time might be required.
If your kid fails all their classes repeating a year might be required.
If your kid refuses to eat their vegetables no dessert might be required.
And if your kid is called as a prophet to act as God's representative and then intentionally resists doing God's will then death might be required.

The "God gave us agency" argument simply doesn't work here.
And as Heber C. Kimball taught:

• "What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time.  And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfil (sic) His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so.”

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

With the emphasis put on following the law (at least prior to SSM) the Church has established an age policy - whatever the state says is legal.

Right, but some regions of the world allow for young girls to get married legally. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Right, but some regions of the world allow for young girls to get married legally.

Does the Church in those regions?
 

[carbon dioxide]

40 minutes ago, longview said:

Disagree.  Two can live cheaply as one.  Couples just need to be proactive about their living arrangements and jobs and budget and expenses.  They should not marry if they are immature or have dysfunctional issues.  Most are wise enough to seek counseling and advice from both sets of parents or professionals.  We hear stories of the woman putting her husband thru medical school while working.  Stuff like that.

There will always be exceptions but teen marriages follow the same general patter as teen pregnancies.  Poverty is more often the results.

[Gray]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Does the Church in those regions?
 

I assume it does. Honestly, I really don't want to google "countries where it's legal to marry young girls". Not something I want in my search history!

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Does the Church in those regions?
 

How would the church allow or disallow a marriage.

They certainly don't have the authority to annul marriages.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In many cases I see such discussions as people seeking an unreasonable level of validation of their reasons for leaving or rejecting the Church. They have only concluded that Joseph Smith was a liar and adulterer rather than the prophet of the restoration, but they want recognition for knowing that he was, or that they know what they are talking about from a historical perspective, but this cannot be done with historical integrity.

What has been historically inaccurate here?  

We may come to different conclusions or beliefs or interpretations, but this discussion has included historical integrity or accuracy from what I've read.

Edited March 8, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

How would the church allow or disallow a marriage.

They certainly don't have the authority to annul marriages.

By not agreeing to solemnize it (civil wedding by Bishop etc) or not allowing the sealing in the temple (eternal wedding).

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What has been historically inaccurate here?  

We may come to different conclusions or beliefs or interpretations, but this discussion has included historical integrity or accuracy from what I've read.

Some take the truth to be hard. The reasons I left the church turned out to be true!!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Disagree.  Two can live cheaply as one.  Couples just need to be proactive about their living arrangements and jobs and budget and expenses.  They should not marry if they are immature or have dysfunctional issues.  Most are wise enough to seek counseling and advice from both sets of parents or professionals.  We hear stories of the woman putting her husband thru medical school while working.  Stuff like that.

Most teens live with their parents or get funding from them, parents who generally have a larger income than the teens can get.  Having to pay for rent, food, etc. is not as cheap for the individual as having someone else pay for them.

I wonder how many women these days with a high school degree or less are able to put their husband through med school without loans.

Edited March 8, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

By not agreeing to solemnize it (civil wedding by Bishop etc) or not allowing the sealing in the temple (eternal wedding).

I guess, but if there is not church discipline, they would be allowing it.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Read her early writings.  She didn't seem to understand it was going to be actual marriage and even stated she thought of herself as an "abused child".  

If already posted, please ignore...

She did not feel "abused" because of plural marriage, but because she had to stay home from a disreputable dance and she was grateful she was protected from the "tongue of scandal".  I don't know if it was carelessness or outright deception that this quote was first used to claim Helen saw herself as a victim of polygamy (I hope no one is suggesting the dad would have preferred her brother to stay home too because he was plural married to someone), but I really wish people would go to Helen's own writings rather than be dependent on someone else's interpretation and pass on untruths.

"During the winter of 1843, there were plenty of parties and balls, and many were held at the mansion. The last one that I attended there that winter was on Christmas Eve. Some of the young gentlemen got up a series of dancing parties to be held at the mansion once a week. My brother William put his name down before asking father's permission, and when questioned about it made him believe that he must pay the money for himself and the lady, whether he went or not, and that he could not honorably withdraw from it. He carried the day, but I had to stay at home, as my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away from there, because of the blacklegs and certain ones of questionable character who attended there. His wife Emma had become the ruling spirit and money had become her God. I did not betray William, but I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow him to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fetter me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did and I really felt that it was too much to bear. It made the dull school still more dull and like a wild bird, I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself a much abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur. I imagined that my happiness was all over and brooded over the sad memories of sweet departed joys and all manner of future woes, which (by the by) were of short duration, my bump of hope being too large to admit of my remaining long under the clouds. Besides my father was very kind and indulgent in other ways, and always took me with him when mother could not go, and it was not a very long time before I became satisfied that I was blessed in being under the control of so good and wise a parent who had taken counsel and thus saved me from evils, which some others in their youth and inexperience were exposed to though they thought no evil. Yet the busy tongue of scandal did not spare them."

 

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/HWhitney.html

Edited March 8, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most teens live with their parents or get funding from them, parents who generally have a larger income than the teens can get.  Having to pay for rent, food, etc. is not as cheap for the individual as having someone else pay for them.

I wonder how many women these days with a high school degree or less are able to put their husband through med school without loans.

I think your comments are correct for our part of the world, In other parts of the world, teenagers are expected to start contributing at a much younger age.

Here in the states its mostly illegal to teach kids how to work. We keep them in a cage until they are 18, then turn them loose and expect them to be adults.