New First Vision Video

[Benjamin Seeker]

35 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yeah, I couldn't remember if we'd talked about that Coltrin account before or not, but it did seem familiar.  I think where we differ is on the assumption you're making that the JS of 1844 view of the Godhead is consistent with the Joseph of 1833 view, which I don't believe the evidence supports.

I don't think the late Coltrin account says anything about physicality of these sightings.  Assuming for a moment that Coltrin's late recollection accurately reflects the experience, I think you can read this as being completely consistent with the Lecture's on Faith view of the Godhead, one where Jesus is the a being of tabernacle, and God the Father is being of spirit only.  My challenge to you is to show evidence for a physical God the Father doctrine in the early 1830s.  

Last but not least(!), the Book of Mormon is actually fantastic evidence that JS' perception of traditional Christianity was the same all the way back in 1829 as it was in 1844, only in 1829 he still kind of believed in it!

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

No, I'm with you on God the Father being a personage of Spirit according to 1833 theology. When I say "physically separate" I don't mean two physical beings, I just mean two separate beings, and according to Lectures on Faith one believed to be a physical tabernacle and the other spirit. Spirits appearing in a body-like form have the 1829 precedent in the Brother of Jared's Christ-theophany.

So, I don't think JS' view of the Godhead is the same in 1844 and 1833, but I do think it's very possible that his perception of traditional Christianity's doctrine on the nature of God is the same in 1844 and 1833. Of course, that could be debated, but it's at least a possibility.

But how does Coltrin's experience show that that Joseph saw the Son and the Father as separate beings.  They weren't present at the same time, so to me this is consistent with Modalism which is what many scholars find consistent with the BoM and other early revelations.  Had both personages been present at the same time, then you couldn't say they were the same being, but since they came at separate times, then I think this view is consistent with a Modalistic view of God, where God can present himself in different forms for different purposes, but that its the same being.  

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But how does Coltrin's experience show that that Joseph saw the Son and the Father as separate beings.  They weren't present at the same time, so to me this is consistent with Modalism which is what many scholars find consistent with the BoM and other early revelations.  Had both personages been present at the same time, then you couldn't say they were the same being, but since they came at separate times, then I think this view is consistent with a Modalistic view of God, where God can present himself in different forms for different purposes, but that its the same being.  

That is a super interesting and probably significant detail. I'm not sure how to take it considering JS' comment to the group post-vision that "they are two separate personages." It's beautifully messy just like the rest of early Mormonism.

But, like we've talked about before, the Book of Moses does have God the Father and the Son present at the same time doing things, a fairly significant shift from the BOM.

 

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

This now shows that your issue with the various First Vision accounts is based on a preexisting moral bias and not an objective high-quality historical study, which is also clearly betrays a bias. As with with these other sidetracks.

No bias...totally separate issues.  I think JS was brilliant...and the 1832 and 1838 versions don't reconcile for me (independent of how he practiced polygamy).  

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Good point. I didn't realize we are working under such precise definitions, and I'm not convinced that other people are debating with such specific categories. Of course, I was troubled with the morality of the issue, but I'm placing this into a general "church history" category in my comments, if that makes sense. To be fair to you and other posters, the discrepancies in the First Vision accounts was never significant in my list of issues. However, the general evolution and editing of narratives and documents by JS has now become an important topic for me.

It seems like precision is inevitable as we drill down on a topic. The OP is brings up questions of how people manage a lack of precision in similarity between the First Vision historical accounts, but in discussing it, these questions turn out to be critiques arising from a separate moral assessment that became a general bias about the cause of / reason for that lack of precision. Of course the general Church history category can accommodate purely academic observations and conclusions, but once a faith crisis is interjected, it is worth noting the genesis of how they relate to each other. For example, "I just came across this morally bothersome history, so the Church must have hidden it or lied to me, so...," or "I find JS's activities immoral, so...." The crisis being, "there must be an immoral or illegitimate root to the Church's claims." The study of history seems to be more an exercise in the transference of disappointment or feelings of betrayal than these examples: https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/archives/why-study-history-(1998)

6 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

No bias...totally separate issues.  I think JS was brilliant...and the 1832 and 1838 versions don't reconcile for me (independent of how he practiced polygamy).  

LOL too late, you already confessed what brought this about!

Edited March 6, 2017 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Also, I should add, now that I've explored the evolving Priesthood narrative in more detail, I find it less likely that the 1832 account represents some kind of misrepresentation of his true First Vision experiences for the benefit of the uninitiated. One of the things that tipped me off is that he included the reception of Priesthood by the ministering of angels in his 1832 history, which was pretty cutting edge doctrine for the time period and wouldn't really get elaborated or preached until later on, which leaves me asking why would he hold back in one area and not another?

Previously I felt more strongly that there may have been an inner circle already talking about the separate nature of God the and the Son prior to the 1832 history, and there is definitely a theological shift between the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses' portrayals of God the Father and the Son. However, with more understanding of JS' tendency to let doctrine evolve, I'm coming to see the 1832 history as more likely representing a sincere entry in JS's evolution as opposed to a watered down version for the masses.

I too am interested in what the 1832 reference to the priesthood being received my the ministering of Angels meant as far as Joseph's evolution of thought about Priesthood.  I would like to see this fleshed out more.  I think does represent an evolution from the first emphasis on Priesthood that really started with Sidney Rigdon and got significantly ramped up in 1835 with respect to Angelic ordination.

Is Vogel's idea about charismatic authority more in alignment with the historical record, I think it is, but I can accept that we might be missing part of the picture and the importance early on for the idea of angelic bestowed authority present in the early church.

I do think its worth pointing out that the idea of angelic authority in some ways runs contrary to the FV narrative that we have today.  Curious if you've read the Oliver Cowdery 1834 history of the church and considered that history which he wrote with Joseph's help, and that story doesn't have any FV account and uses the Moroni story (not named yet in the history) as the defining event for the beginnings of the church.  It seems to me that Joseph was experimenting with how he wanted to craft the history of the beginnings of the church, and that he had multiple different experiences that he could potentially build from to present this story.   

Edited March 6, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That is a super interesting and probably significant detail. I'm not sure how to take it considering JS' comment to the group post-vision that "they are two separate personages." It's beautifully messy just like the rest of early Mormonism.

But, like we've talked about before, the Book of Moses does have God the Father and the Son present at the same time doing things, a fairly significant shift from the BOM.

 

 

I haven't researched the early Bible translation efforts of JS very much, this is an area I'm lacking.  Do you have any suggested books or resources.  I need to get up to speed on the JST and the timeframe for the chapters as he was working on the project, I think the timing of these revelations could give insights if lined up with revelations in the D&C and other church history events.  Any suggestions?  

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems like precision is inevitable as we drill down on a topic. The OP is brings up questions of how people manage a lack of precision in similarity between the First Vision historical accounts, but in discussing it, these questions turn out to be critiques arising from a separate moral assessment that became a general bias about the cause of / reason for that lack of precision. Of course the general Church history category can accommodate purely academic observations and conclusions, but once a faith crisis is interjected, it is worth noting the genesis of how they relate to each other. For example, "I just came across this morally bothersome history, so the Church must have hidden it or lied to me, so...," or "I find JS's activities immoral, so...." The crisis being, "there must be an immoral or illegitimate root to the Church's claims." The study of history seems to be more an exercise in the transference of disappointment or betrayal.

For me it was more of a slow build. For example, the one may have experienced these observations: "JS' polygamy was possibly immoral" and "the Book of Mormon is possibly note historical" and "there is definite conflict between spiritual witnesses and visions in our religion and those experienced in many other religions" and "the priesthood ban seems dumb" and "wow, the doctrine seems to originate with the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham, or in other words, with JS despite his ordination of black men." The evidence continues to pile on until some of their suggested conclusions are so obvious the individual spirals into a faith crisis or transition. Basically, the collective weight of evidence points strongly towards a conclusion and forces the issue.

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I haven't researched the early Bible translation efforts of JS very much, this is an area I'm lacking.  Do you have any suggested books or resources.  I need to get up to speed on the JST and the timeframe for the chapters as he was working on the project, I think the timing of these revelations could give insights if lined up with revelations in the D&C and other church history events.  Any suggestions?  

I've just looked up the timeline as I go on the Joseph Smith Papers website. They have a general time period assigned to each manuscript. I believe the book of Moses is mid 1830 to mid 1831.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

The "cousin of presentism", that I referred to earlier, is "parochialism".  Which is:

"Parochialism is the state of mind, whereby one focuses on small sections of an issue rather than considering its wider context. More generally, it consists of being narrow in scope. In that respect, it is a synonym of "provincialism". It may, particularly when used pejoratively, be contrasted to universalism. The term insularity (related to an island) may be similarly used."

Ouagadougou's thing about 14-year-old brides is presentism and parochialism.  It is not customary in modern Western culture to give mid-teens like this in marriage, but it was once acceptable, even when it was less common.  As I indicated earlier, my step-mom's marriage at 15 years old (and she could have married at 14 where she was living at the time) was legal with parental permission.  In these modern times, in this Western milieu, it is "horrifying".  Kind of like cold pizza for breakfast to some people.  And a perfect example of presentism.

As for "marrying other men's wives," it is a "bait and switch".  He didn't marry other men's wives, he was sealed to them by their consent, while their earthly marriage remained intact.  As one example we have Orson Hyde, who was married for time to a woman who was sealed to Joseph Smith.  By their consent.  And I am "married to another man's wife" at this time.  Of course, in this instance he is deceased and I am married to her only for time.  The only difference between Joseph Smith, Orson Hyde and myself is that my wife's eternal companion isn't currently in the picture.  And this is where the parochialism comes in.  Ouagadougou, by his own admission (see "Why I continue to go to church"), doesn't have a testimony of Joseph Smith as an actual Prophet, nor of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the authoritative church of Jesus Christ.  I don't know if he has a testimony of Christ as the Redeemer, but this hardly relates to the present discussion.  He doesn't like plural marriage.  He doesn't like how the church treats gays.  he doesn't believe that the Word of Wisdom is divinely sourced.  And it wouldn't stop there.  Abraham deserves scorn for his dismissal of Hagar and her (and his) son Ishmael, and for nearly sacrificing his son Isaac.  Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were all despicable for their plural marriage.  It doesn't matter that God apparently commanded, or at the very least, permitted all this shameful behavior, so, it follows that He doesn't exist, and everything we do is nothing more than tradition based in nothing more than our good pleasure.  That some of it might be uplifting is admitted, and he is going to treat it all like a cafeteria, where you take what you like and reject the rest.  But the narrowness of scope, for parochialism in this context, is to consider only those things that one doesn't care for, or that makes one feel uncomfortable, and ignore the fact (or possibility) that what one doesn't like is what God has commanded or permitted, in a literal sense. 

And yes, I do consider that there is a genuine, legitimate concern over church history.  And I sympathize with those who have lost their testimony over their discoveries in Church history.  I don't know what to tell them to assuage their anguish, but I do not have a testimony of Church history.  I have a testimony, through the Spirit, that God lives, Jesus is the Christ, and Joseph Smith was a genuine Prophet of God, charged with authority to restore the Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days.  I wish I could transfer a portion of this testimony to those whose testimonies have become weak, like a Vulcan mind-meld or something like that, but alas it is not possible.  Each person must recharge his or her own testimonial batteries. 

Oh, well, this is quite a threadjack, but Ouagadougou brought it up himself, so there we are.

The average marital age in colonized America in the 1800's was between 21 and 23.

Furthermore, the issues with LDS polygamy are not necessarily about polygamy itself, but include and are not limited to the deceptive and questionable manner of its administration. 

Portions of the early church  including Joseph Smith practiced polygamy while commanding against it,  whilst also breaking its own (later published) rules against it, whilst also proclaiming obedience to laws of the land. In other words, polygamy of the early church exposed what seem to be and absence of integrity and good character of our prophet.

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Gray]

If cultural norms excuse the ages of Joseph Smith's youngest wives (I'm not convinced the age difference would have been typical), don't cultural norms also excuse other behaviors the church currently finds objectionable? For instance, sex before marriage is a cultural norm. Are cultural norms a good yardstick for moral behavior? 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

For me it was more of a slow build. For example, the one may have experienced these observations: "JS' polygamy was possibly immoral" and "the Book of Mormon is possibly note historical" and "there is definite conflict between spiritual witnesses and visions in our religion and those experienced in many other religions" and "the priesthood ban seems dumb" and "wow, the doctrine seems to originate with the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham, or in other words, with JS despite his ordination of black men." The evidence continues to pile on until some of their suggested conclusions are so obvious the individual spirals into a faith crisis or transition. Basically, the collective weight of evidence points strongly towards a conclusion and forces the issue.

Yes, the rate of progression and the factors involved certainly seem to vary for those who find “the collective weight of evidence points strongly towards a conclusion and forces the issue.” But I think that faith crisis by definition calls for a faith breakthrough. Some want and seek that and others simply drop the exercise, find something else and call it "good" / "crisis resolved." I’m not sure what one is doing by dropping the exercise, finding something else, but not calling it good, as in putting up a cheesy infographic to counter how people explain how historical accounts have not created an issue, difficult question or crisis for them.

[JulieM]

43 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The average marital age in colonized America in the 1800's was between 21 and 23.

True. It's pretty ridiculous when apologists act like it was just the norm for 14 year old girls to get married back then (or even 15 or 16 year old girls).  

And, when they did marry that young, they usually did not marry men over 20 years older than they were or men who already had dozens of other wives! 

They also didn't marry men who were proposing to them behind their wife's (and other wives') backs too.

So many lies and so much deception.

This is a poor apologetic tactic, IMO.  In no way was what Joseph was doing the norm or accepted.

Edited March 6, 2017 by JulieM

[Meadowchik]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

True. It's pretty ridiculous when apologists act like it was just the norm for 14 year old girls to get married back then (or even 15 or 16 year old girls).  

And, when they did marry that young, they usually did not marry men over 20 years older than they were or men who already had dozens of other wives! 

They also didn't marry men who were proposing to them behind their wife's (and other wives') backs too.

So many lies and so much deception.

This is a poor apologetic tactic, IMO.  In no way was what Joseph was doing the norm or accepted.

I understand about the misconconception over marital age, though. The same thing came out of my mouth in the past. It was ignorance.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

As for "marrying other men's wives," it is a "bait and switch".  He didn't marry other men's wives, he was sealed to them by their consent, while their earthly marriage remained intact.  

That is just speculation.  We don't know if any of Joseph's plural marriages were for eternity only (there's no record stating that).

There was a recent thread on here discussing this, but here's some good info from JLHPROF:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68597-eternity-only-sealings/?do=findComment&comment=1209694931

     

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by JulieM

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The average marital age in colonized America in the 1800's was between 21 and 23.

When you use average, I think you should include median and standard deviation, otherwise the average is useless to determine what was Normal.  Also, you should account for regional variations. 

Just celebrated the 50th anniversary of my mother and father in law. My mother in law was married at age 14, which was quite common in the area where they are from.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Danzo

[JulieM]

54 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When you use average, I think you should include median and standard deviation, otherwise the average is useless to determine what was Normal.  Also, you should account for regional variations. 

Just celebrated the 50th anniversary of my mother and father in law. My mother in law was married at age 14, which was quite common in the area where they are from.

That is just one aspect of Joseph's marriages (marrying a 14 year old).  None of the terms you use above can be used to describe his marriages.  I doubt your mother in law married a man in his late 30's when she was 14 or a man who already had a legal wife and dozens of plural wives.  

[Danzo]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

That is just one aspect of Joseph's marriages (marrying a 14 year old).  None of the terms you use above can be used to describe his marriages.  I doubt your mother in law married a man in his late 30's when she was 14 or a man who already had a legal wife and dozens of plural wives.  

If being 14 years old is not the issue, then why mention the average age of marriages?

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If being 14 years old is not the issue, then why mention the average age of marriages?

Because that's a response or argument that apologists use when anyone has issues with the ages of many of Joseph's wives (as one of many disturbing details regarding how polygamy was practiced). They claim it was normal or common for 14 year old girls to marry back then (just as you attempted to do above).  

Edited March 7, 2017 by JulieM

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems like precision is inevitable as we drill down on a topic. The OP is brings up questions of how people manage a lack of precision in similarity between the First Vision historical accounts, but in discussing it, these questions turn out to be critiques arising from a separate moral assessment that became a general bias about the cause of / reason for that lack of precision. Of course the general Church history category can accommodate purely academic observations and conclusions, but once a faith crisis is interjected, it is worth noting the genesis of how they relate to each other. For example, "I just came across this morally bothersome history, so the Church must have hidden it or lied to me, so...," or "I find JS's activities immoral, so...." The crisis being, "there must be an immoral or illegitimate root to the Church's claims." The study of history seems to be more an exercise in the transference of disappointment or feelings of betrayal than these examples: https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/archives/why-study-history-(1998)

LOL too late, you already confessed what brought this about!

Right...because I've mentioned numerous times on this site in other threads that I think JS was extremely brilliant and great at telling stories; even his family members made mention of that.  What I find interesting is that JS can recall the detail of an angel "with a flaming sword" when supposedly told to practice polygamy; however, when it comes to documenting the First Vision (for the first time in 1832), he forgets to mention that God himself was there with Jesus (pretty big oversight).    

And around this same time period, JS established the School of the Prophets.  The following was said about JS:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith “loved learning,” wrote George Q. Cannon. “He loved knowledge for its righteous power. Through the tribulations which had surrounded him from the day when first he made known to a skeptical world his communion with the heavens, he had been ever advancing in the acquisition of intelligence. The Lord had commanded him to study, and he was obeying. … His mind, quickened by the Holy Spirit, grasped with readiness all true principles, and one by one he mastered these branches and became in them a teacher.” 

Perhaps JS simply forgot (as many people do); nevertheless, you can see why this might cause a great deal of discrepancy for somebody trying to believe the First Vision story, especially when the account used by the church is from 1838 -- 18 years following this event.    

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng

[mfbukowski]

On 3/4/2017 at 4:09 PM, Ouagadougou said:

https://history.lds.org/story/first-vision?lang=eng

I'm sure some have seen this already, but the church released a new first vision video (see link above).  

A few questions came up after I watched this video:

- How do you reconcile the differences between the 1832 account and the 1838 account?  (i.e. JS seeing just Christ in 1832; and seeing both Christ and God in 1838)?  

- Why would JS wait 12 years to record such an important event, along with so many varying accounts (the church admits to nine)?  

- Did JS join and/or attend a Methodist church following the 1st vision when he was commanded not to (as stated below)?  

Joseph Smith History 
Chapter 1:

 "19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith's_First_Vision/Joseph_Smith_joined_other_churches

Finally, the article below, IMO, highlights many of the problems with the first vision accounts.  How do you make the different accounts harmonize, given the many inconsistencies?  

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V34N0102_47.pdf

 

If I was going to fake a vision, my story would be perfect and bullet proof every time.

Joseph was not a dummy.  If he was lying he would have done a much better job.

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The average marital age in colonized America in the 1800's was between 21 and 23.    So what?  I cited a minimum age that existed and was used well into the 20th century, and you still insist upon the average as the standard?

Furthermore, the issues with LDS polygamy are not necessarily about polygamy itself, but include and are not limited to the deceptive and questionable manner of its administration. 

Portions of the early church  including Joseph Smith practiced polygamy while commanding against it,  whilst also breaking its own (later published) rules against it, whilst also proclaiming obedience to laws of the land. In other words, polygamy of the early church exposed what seem to be and absence of integrity and good character of our prophet.  Abraham lied to Pharoah about his wife.  Isaac lied about his wife.  The Lord refused his disciples permission to name him the Messiah.  Are we going to insist upon perfection at every stage?  Not even the Primitive Church could have survived your insistence upon perfection and consistency. 

 

So you're still wanting this practice to conform to 19th and 20th century mores, when the practice originally dates to 2 and 3000 years in the past.  And you want consistency in these days when rules were new and still being developed.  I don't doubt that if plural marriage were to be re-instituted that the rules will have been very thoroughly thought out and vetted with the Lord by the time we get the word.  And even if the rules are well thought-out, no doubt problems will arise because of human fallibility. 

We still have "rule turbulence", and in many things.  One used to be able to married for Time Only in the temple.  Now one can't be.  A deceased female can now be sealed to more than one deceased man.  Deacons used to be adults.  The WoW used to be voluntary.  We used to pay tithes in kind. 

I'm satisfied that the Church is true and is being administered as well as it can be administered by fallible mortal beings under the guidance of the Lord.  I don't insist upon perfection, either in historical or in current events.  If you do, then that's your lookout. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

That is just one aspect of Joseph's marriages (marrying a 14 year old).  None of the terms you use above can be used to describe his marriages.  I doubt your mother in law married a man in his late 30's when she was 14 or a man who already had a legal wife and dozens of plural wives.  

Actually they can.  What made Joseph's marriages different was they were marriages, as in plural.  Young marrieds with signicantly older men were not common, but percentage wise matched Joseph's.

Polygamy was way outside the norm.  Older men marrying young women not so much.

See here for an analysis of census (iirc) data of both age difference and youth and in combination:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women

"Of note is that 41.7% of women married as teenagers compared to only 4.1% of men. The mean age for men was more than five years older than that for women (27.6 vs. 22.5). For young women, marriage in the early to mid teens was rare, but not unheard of as both the anecdotal and statistical evidence above show. Teenage brides married a husband that averaged 6.6 +/- 4.7 (std) years older. To put that in perspective, 13% of the time the husband was over 10 years older than his teenage wife.

The 21st century reader is likely to see marriages of young women to much older men as inappropriate, though it is still not uncommon. In the U.S. today, in most states, the "age of consent" is set by statute to be 18. This is the age at which a person can consent to sexual activity or to marriage. However, even today, the "marriageable age," the minimum age at which a person may marry with parental permission or with a judge's permission, is 16 in most states. In California, there is no minimum marriageable age; a child of any age may marry with parental consent. [15] So Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball, having been done with her parents' permission, would be legal in California even today, except for the polygamous aspect of it.

But the modern age limits in most states represent only the modern attitude. The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had the declared age of consent to be ten. Some had raised it to twelve, and Delaware had lowered it to seven! [16]

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. As one non-LDS scholar of teenage life in American history noted:

"Until the twentieth century, adult expectations of young people were determined not by age but by size. If a fourteen-year-old looked big and strong enough to do a man's work on a farm or in a factory or mine, most people viewed him as a man. And if a sixteen-year-old was slower to develop and couldn't perform as a man, he wasn't one. For, young women, the issue was much the same. To be marriageable was the same as being ready for motherhood, which was determined by physical development, not age....

The important thing, though, was that the maturity of each young person was judged individually. [17]"

In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age."

[JulieM]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. 

And how do you know no one did?  How many of his "contemporaries" even knew about all his plural marriages?  They were done with such secrecy at the time.  How many even knew about his marriage to Helen Mar Kimball (members or non-members who were his contemporaries)?  How many knew of his other marriages to the teenage girls?

Also, all your effort to attempt to portray his marriages to teenagers as "normal" or average for back then, doesn't work.  Just because some older men also married teens, doesn't make what he was doing normal.  I'm fairly certain these other men didn't hide their marriages or do it in secrecy. They didn't marry multiple teenagers along with middle age women and a few older women all while their first legal wife was still living.  Your examples don't make what Joseph did normal or average for that time.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Are you ignoring the point I made that polygamy was way outside the norm or focusing solely on the side of the age differences?  If the latter, I am comfortable relying on the statistics to show whether it was outside the norm or not.  I used "norm" in a statistical sense, math and stats were a big part of my education.  Don't want to get out of the habit.

If someone showed by statistics JS was way outside of the norm in age difference as he was with polygamy, that would be okay for me.  Polygamy is so out there for me, additional oddities won't add that much baggage.