Age of Consent

[thesometimesaint]

SEE https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/14/us-new-york-children-young-14-can-marry

Edited April 17, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[cinepro]

Assuming this is being posted in a Mormon-related forum with the idea that it somehow relates to the common complaint about Joseph Smith having been sealed to Helen Mar Kimball when she was 14, I will point out (yet again), that no one takes exception to the idea of a 14-year-old girl in the 1840s on the American frontier getting married. 

If HMK had married Billy Dunfy, a 16 year old farmer's son and they had tilled the land and started a family together, no one would bat an eye.  We might even make a popular Sunday evening family TV show about it and call it "Little Cabin on the Plains" or something.

The problem is that at the time he was sealed to her, the 38-year-old Prophet Joseph Smith was legally married to another woman, and illegally married/sealed to several others (and with the marriage to HMK being kept secret from that first legally married wife).  The arrangement also seems to have involved some sort of persuasion that was based on Joseph's role as a religious leader in the community.

That is what people seem to find so disturbing, and none of those point seem to be addressed by that article.

Edited April 17, 2017 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

While not common it was perfectly legal for a much older man to marry a young woman. Polygamy is a Red Herring.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

cinepro:

While not common it was perfectly legal for a much older man to marry a young woman. Polygamy is a Red Herring.

Legal is not the same as moral. 

 

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem is:

1. that at the time he was sealed to her, the 38-year-old Prophet Joseph Smith
Age still seems to be the first concern, despite the irrelevancy of age in that time period.

2. was legally married to another woman
Legal marriages were no longer seen as particularly binding at that time because God had nothing to do with them.  We don't have to agree, but that is the fact of their beliefs.

3. and illegally married/sealed to several others
Polygamy involves marriage to other women.  That in and of itself does not provide an objection to the practice, especially for a community following it from a religious viewpoint.

4. (and with the marriage to HMK being kept secret from that first legally married wife).

• D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

Based on the assumption Emma had already been taught plural marriage as a doctrine and law, Joseph had NO obligation to inform her or seek her permission once she had rejected that law.

5. The arrangement also seems to have involved some sort of persuasion that was based on Joseph's role as a religious leader in the community.
Seems a silly concern, that the leader of a religion that believed and practiced plural marriage would then encourage such a marriage due to that position.  The idea I suppose is that it was abuse of power.  By that argument every time a religious leader mentions hell for breaking a commandment it would be abuse of power.  Christ would have been VERY guilty of abuse of power.

Quote

That is what people seem to find so disturbing, and none of those point seem to be addressed by that article.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

Legal is not the same as moral.

 

Morality is whatever God says is right.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Morality is whatever God says is right.

Actually in Mormonism God doesn't determine what is moral or not. It's independent of God. 

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Actually in Mormonism God doesn't determine what is moral or not. It's independent of God. 

True but God knows what IS moral and therefore what he says about what morality IS is right.

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Actually in Mormonism God doesn't determine what is moral or not. It's independent of God.

Ok, fair enough.  This is true.
But as a result of those eternal laws of morality God is the one who reveals what is moral.  Society doesn't get to determine morality.
And for the sake of this thread, a 14 year old marrying a 38 year old has only been considered immoral in society for about 150 years.  And God has said nothing on the matter that I've ever read.

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

cinepro:

While not common it was perfectly legal for a much older man to marry a young woman. Polygamy is a Red Herring.

Still, you haven't addressed that Joseph was married to other women at the same time. And Helen didn't fall in love with Joseph, he wasn't her beau like the scenario of two people getting married young because they're in love.

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

True but God knows what IS moral and therefore what he says about what morality IS is right.

Yes, I think that's right. 

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, fair enough.  This is true.
But as a result of those eternal laws of morality God is the one who reveals what is moral.  Society doesn't get to determine morality.
And for the sake of this thread, a 14 year old marrying a 38 year old has only been considered immoral in society for about 150 years.  And God has said nothing on the matter that I've ever read.

Yes, the scriptures are silent on adults having relationships with underage kids, although the Spirit speaks plainly that this is sinful. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, the scriptures are silent on adults having relationships with underage kids, although the Spirit speaks plainly that this is sinful.

Apparently not.  Apparently, only in the last 150 years has the "spirit" spoken such a thing.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently not.  Apparently, only in the last 150 years has the "spirit" spoken such a thing.

I guess it depends on who is asking and who is listening. In general the scriptures aren't great at condemning sexual violence and abuse, although the Book of Mormon at least takes a stab at it (while not addressing what we would call statutory rape). 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Gray

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

1. that at the time he was sealed to her, the 38-year-old Prophet Joseph Smith
Age still seems to be the first concern, despite the irrelevancy of age in that time period.

2. was legally married to another woman
Legal marriages were no longer seen as particularly binding at that time because God had nothing to do with them.  We don't have to agree, but that is the fact of their beliefs.

3. and illegally married/sealed to several others
Polygamy involves marriage to other women.  That in and of itself does not provide an objection to the practice, especially for a community following it from a religious viewpoint.

4. (and with the marriage to HMK being kept secret from that first legally married wife).

• D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

Based on the assumption Emma had already been taught plural marriage as a doctrine and law, Joseph had NO obligation to inform her or seek her permission once she had rejected that law.

5. The arrangement also seems to have involved some sort of persuasion that was based on Joseph's role as a religious leader in the community.
Seems a silly concern, that the leader of a religion that believed and practiced plural marriage would then encourage such a marriage due to that position.  The idea I suppose is that it was abuse of power.  By that argument every time a religious leader mentions hell for breaking a commandment it would be abuse of power.  Christ would have been VERY guilty of abuse of power.

 

Sounds like you've got it all figured out, but you really just reinforced my original point that the situation with Joseph Smith is drastically different than the types of marriages defenders try to use to normalize his behavior. 

But at the very least, you stand as a good example of why the Church will never totally die.  There will always be someone left.

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by cinepro

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

cinepro:

While not common it was perfectly legal for a much older man to marry a young woman. Polygamy is a Red Herring.

Calling polygamy a "red herring" reduces the problems many people have with it to a meme of "you're too stupid to understand this isn't important. Silly knaves."

It also feels like calling a multi-faceted doctrine and practice like polygamy a red herring based on one qualifier, demonstrates a very shallow understanding of the problems and the bigger problems that underlie those.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Sounds like you've got it all figured out.  At the very least, you stand as a good example of why the Church will never totally die.  There will always be someone left.

Thank you for saying that.
I truly appreciate such a wonderful compliment. 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

cinepro:

While not common it was perfectly legal for a much older man to marry a young woman. Polygamy is a Red Herring.

A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. Just HOW is disgussing polygamy, in regards to your original post, distracting from that post.

Please tell why you posted the news article about 14 year olds being able to marry?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/14/us-new-york-children-young-14-can-marry

In Helen's own words:

Quote

 Just previous to my father’s starting upon his last mission but one, to the Eastern States, he taught me the principle [p. 1] of Celestial marriage, & having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet, Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter: how cruel this seamed to the mother whose heartstrings were already stretched untill they were ready to snap asunder, for he had taken Sarah Noon to wife & she thought she had made sufficient sacrafise, but the Lord required more. I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me this principle & asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph, who came next morning & with my parents I heard him ^teach & explain the principle of [p. 1] Celestial marrage-after which he said to me, “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. 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.

As has been pointed out Joseph's plural marriage raises so many more issues than age. We have a religious leader more than 20 years her senior using high pressure tactics (this step will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and all your kindred - is this even doctrinally sound?), and a short time frame to convince a 14 year girl to become his celestial bride. That certain apologists want to compare this to monogamous marriages to young girls makes sense but entirely misses the mark.

Edited April 17, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Based on the assumption Emma had already been taught plural marriage as a doctrine and law, Joseph had NO obligation to inform her or seek her permission once she had rejected that law.

 

 

Well, that is a topic that could fill a whole book. In fact, I'm not going to let you get off too easily. CFR to anything you can find in scripture or church history that can back up that point. 

I wouldn't mind a list of things you think a husband has no obligation to inform (or seek permission from) the wife about. Did Emma's opposition to polygamy somehow make Joseph's wedding vows null and void?

[stemelbow]

I have another issue with this (thanks seeking, for bringing Helen's words into the thread).  I like Helen, well feel like I would have liked her if I knew her.  But when she says she sacrificed to get a great reward, I'm less inclined to feel nobility.  There's something along the lines of the ends justify the means issue here.  I feel like we should be far more about doing good then doing that which get's us more rewards in eternity.  I'd hope God sees it the same.  Thus, in my mind, polygamy couldn't possibly be supported by God. 

(Not to mention the silliness of a sword carrying angel telling Joseph to get more wives or he'll be destroyed)

Edited April 17, 2017 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Well, that is a topic that could fill a whole book. In fact, I'm not going to let you get off too easily. CFR to anything you can find in scripture or church history that can back up that point.

I wouldn't mind a list of things you think a husband has no obligation to inform (or seek permission from) the wife about. Did Emma's opposition to polygamy somehow make Joseph's wedding vows null and void?

I already provided this.

• D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

According to D&C 132:65 if the wife rejects the law of Plural Marriage the husband is no longer required to seek her permission.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I already provided this.

• D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

According to D&C 132:65 if the wife rejects the law of Plural Marriage the husband is no longer required to seek her permission.

But we don't know when Joseph taught Emma the doctrine of plural marriage, do we?  So how would we know if she'd rejected the doctrine before Joseph took his first plural wife without her consent?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But we don't know when Joseph taught Emma the doctrine of plural marriage, do we?  So how would we know if she'd rejected the doctrine before Joseph took his first plural wife without her consent?

We don't.
But we know that many of his wives, including Helen, most like came after her rejection.
The bigger problem is we don't actually know when that rejection occurred as most records referencing a rejection are considered unlikely by historians.
Tearing up the revelation?  Threatening to burn it?  Poisoning Joseph?  Kicking Eliza R. Snow out?  Kicking the Partridge sisters out?  The Fanny Alger incident?

We don't know or even have any idea when Joseph taught Emma of Plural Marriage the first time.  We don't know or have any idea when Emma first rejected Plural Marriage.
Any guesswork is not history.
But doctrinally Joseph did not need Emma's permission once she rejected the law.

[cinepro]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I already provided this.

• D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

According to D&C 132:65 if the wife rejects the law of Plural Marriage the husband is no longer required to seek her permission.

Just so we're all clear, this special provision of "if your wife doesn't give you permission to take another wife you can do it without telling her" only applies to the man "who holds the keys of this power" (v.64), which in this case is Joseph Smith.

So our currently published and canonized scriptures still say the if President Monson wanted to take another wife, and his first wife (were she still living) said "No", he could still do it behind her back.

Truly the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.