Age of Consent

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

All of these examples are based in present and modern understanding of abuse, of which warren Jeffs etc. are privy to.  To judge Warren Jeffs and the parents of his victims is something we can do without being guilty of presentism.  We cannot judge Joseph and Helen's parents without being guilty of presentism however. 

I do think that cultural sensibilities are different today.  What was once considered discipline just 50 years ago is considered abusive today. Culture and society was different back then.  Obviously from our modern perspective, such behaviors are abusive and wrong, but that is an example of presentism and is not a fair judgement. 

Then why the need for such secrecy (regarding Joseph's marriage to Helen)?

[pogi]

Just now, JulieM said:

Then why the need for such secrecy (regarding Joseph's marriage to Helen)?

Because polygamy was not widely accepted...but I am talking about the child abuse accusation specifically. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Thanks, Calm. I'd love to read that if you can find it. This is a new concept for me and I'm interested in knowing more.

So, do you believe Joseph was sealing the entire family to him rather that just the woman as his wife?  (Just trying to understand).

If so, do we have statements from Joseph regarding that (other than the promise of eternal salvation and exaltation for Helen's family)?  But even with that promise for Helen, did that mean the entire family was being sealed to him?

Yes, that would be the essence of the idea.  How else could Joseph promise salvation unless it meant their place in the family of God was ensured?

[Calm]

Clark, it is likely the articles you linked to were part of the references the blog was based on, but it isn't the specific one I remember.  I may do searches on the names though as they are likely mentioned.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

I don't think we have any kind of official position on adults marrying underage persons. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Not formal doctrine but as practice it's frowned upon. It's strongly taught you shouldn't date until 16. While not dating seriously is typically seen as 18 many have said to wait until you are out of your teens. While we all know lots of women who get married at 18 or 19 the advice appears to be to wait until your 20's.

"When are you old enough? Maturity may vary from individual to individual, but we are convinced that dating should not even begin until you are 16. And then, ideal dating is on a group basis. Stay in group activities; don’t pair off. Avoid steady dating. Steady dating is courtship, and surely the beginning of courtship ought to be delayed until you have emerged from your teens.”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

The polygamy part of it yes, the child abuse part of it...I am not as sure as you are. 

I personally would judge an age differential in a monogamous marriage like that to be unhealthy, but not immoral for its time. It's all the other details that make it immoral, in my opinion.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Then why the need for such secrecy (regarding Joseph's marriage to Helen)?

Much of the persecution of Mormons was tied to rumors of polygamy. That wasn't the only issue of course. The tendency of the Mormons to come in large groups and vote as a bloc had quite a bit to do with it. So do was the perception of a break with acceptable Christianity which wasn't only due to polygamy.

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yes, that would be the essence of the idea.  How else could Joseph promise salvation unless it meant their place in the family of God was ensured?

I don't know.  I honestly don't understand that promise really.  Even if the Kimballs were sealed to Joseph as a family, I don't understand how he could promise "all their kindred" that.

But unless Josph wrote more about it, we really don't know what he meant.  Have you found more?  

The sealing of the entire family is one explanation or idea though that I find interesting to explore.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

Because polygamy was not widely accepted...but I am talking about the child abuse accusation specifically. 

I think that was part of it, but I wonder if the polygamy would have been more accepted if Joseph wasn't marrying such young wives and also other men's wives.  If it was taking place between consenting, unmarried (the women) adults, it wouldn't have had to have been so secretive and involve so much deceit and lies. 

I can't understand why Joseph lived the polyandry mainly.  Why approach already married women?  And how many plural wives did he really need to have restored the principle?  Over 30?

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think that was part of it, but I wonder if the polygamy would have been more accepted if Joseph wasn't marrying such young wives and also other men's wives.  If it was taking place between consenting, unmarried (the women) adults, it wouldn't have had to have been so secretive and involve so much deceit and lies. 

I can't understand why Joseph lived the polyandry mainly.  Why approach already married women?  And how many plural wives did he really need to have restored the principle?  Over 30?

The Sam Brown article I linked to earlier touches on this. He argues these marriages were more sacerdotal than "real." That is he sees a distinction between the polyandrous marriages and some of the young marriages which were dynastic and apparently more a kind of sealing of families together from the other polygamous relationships. I think there's something to that in terms of understanding Joseph's mindset and would explain why at least some marriages seemed purely spiritual and not for this life. But it's also possible I think we have to admit that faithful believing members have a kind of bias to arguing for that. It would be nice if most of those marriages weren't real marriages to say the least.

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The Sam Brown article I linked to earlier touches on this. He argues these marriages were more sacerdotal than "real." That is he sees a distinction between the polyandrous marriages and some of the young marriages which were dynastic and apparently more a kind of sealing of families together from the other polygamous relationships. I think there's something to that in terms of understanding Joseph's mindset and would explain why at least some marriages seemed purely spiritual and not for this life. But it's also possible I think we have to admit that faithful believing members have a kind of bias to arguing for that. It would be nice if most of those marriages weren't real marriages to say the least.

But do you apply the same reasoning to other early church Prophets (and others) who practiced polygamy and polyandry which were "real marriages"?

Why would you think Joseph lived the principle in a different manner?  Even some others who lived it in Nauvoo while Joseph was still living were considered "real marriages" (children were born).

Do you believe all early church polygamists were sealed as an entire family to the man or just the woman was sealed?

It all becomes very confusing as I haven't seen this applied to other plural marriages of that time (and later out in Utah).

(And thanks for posting the Sam Brown article.  I'll take a look!)

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Then why the need for such secrecy (regarding Joseph's marriage to Helen)?

Because people then were as unreasonable as people today.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with them being real marriages. There is just no evidence(IE; children) that JS had sex with them. Particularly those he was Sealed to after his death.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't have a problem with them being real marriages. There is just no evidence(IE; children) that JS had sex with them. Particularly those he was Sealed to after his death.

We have statements from some of his wives though (unless you believe they lied?).  The no children = no marital relations argument is very weak evidence, IMO (but part of the discussion of course too).

I also have no issue with them being real marriages (for the most part). After all, they were Joseph's wives.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because people then were as unreasonable as people today.

Yes, most would still object to someone in their late 30's marrying a 14 year old or a married man approaching a married woman to ask her to become another one of his wives (especially without the knowledge of her husband).

But, I think most don't really care what consenting adults do as long as no one gets hurt (no lies or deception involved such as with the polyandry angle).

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

And did Joseph specify for them which salvation? Did Helen (or her parents) know there were multiple meanings?

What's also disturbing for me here is that Joseph originally asked for Vilate (later saying it was only a test) and then agreed to take Helen as a wife when she was offered.  All of that just seems so wrong when you analyze what took place there.

Would the same promise for eternal salvation have been given if it was Vilate that Joseph ended up marrying instead of Helen?

If he connected it with exaltation, then yes, Joseph did specify which salvation.  The one that led to exaltation.  The one that requires more than salvation alone.
Seeking Understanding quoted him as saying:

Quote

Helen quotes Joseph as saying "If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred."

And yes, if the parties were familiar with D&C 76 they would also know that there were multiple meanings.
Would the same promise have been given if it was Vilate?  Yes, I believe it would on the principle of sacrifice leading to exaltation alone.

Brigham Young understood the various levels.  He said ". All men, excepting those who sin against the Holy Ghost, who shed innocent blood or who consent thereto, will be saved in some kingdom; for in my father's house, says Jesus, are many mansions" (JD 11:125-26)."

So did Orson Pratt.  "There is quite a difference between being saved in some kingdom, where there is some glory, some happiness, and being saved in the kingdom where our Father resides. …"

And Dallin H. Oaks too - http://scottwoodward.org/salvation_sixmeanings.html

 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, most would still object to someone in their late 30's marrying a 14 year old or a married man approaching a married woman to ask her to become another one of his wives (especially without the knowledge of her husband).

But, I think most don't really care what consenting adults do as long as no one gets hurt (no lies or deception involved such as with the polyandry angle).

There really is no convincing people that what Joseph did is right.  There are too many stubborn traditions in the way for them to see past.
Personally, I know that Joseph did nothing wrong.  Everything he did was in keeping with God's commands.
Can't prove that to people, and that is probably the way it is supposed to be.  No faith necessary if we could prove it.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There really is no convincing people that what Joseph did is right.  There are too many stubborn traditions in the way for them to see past.
Personally, I know that Joseph did nothing wrong.  Everything he did was in keeping with God's commands.
Can't prove that to people, and that is probably the way it is supposed to be.  No faith necessary if we could prove it.

Faith in Christ can result in very honestly and sincerely rejecting Joseph as prophet even if we extend charity to the man.  That's often the case, as I am starting to understand. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Faith in Christ can result in very honestly and sincerely rejecting Joseph as prophet even if we extend charity to the man.  That's often the case, as I am starting to understand.

"Faith in Christ" is not the only kind of faith.
And rejecting one of the men called by Christ hardly seems to include faith in Christ.
But the children of Israel repeatedly lost faith in Moses.  Many of Lehi's own children lost faith in him.  Noah was mocked.  Peter and Paul persecuted.  Breakoff sects happened in their day too.

Prophets are often rejected and people always think they know better and the prophets weren't speaking for God.  We are SO good at repeating history.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We have statements from some of his wives though (unless you believe they lied?).  The no children = no marital relations is a very weak argument (but part of the discussion of course too).

Who knows? The women certainly believed they were married.  If I were trying to establish a marriage claim. Gene's don't lie either.

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Who knows? The women certainly believed they were married.  

Yes, and they were still faithful, righteous women when they testified under oath or swore out affidavits.  IMO, that is strong evidence that at least some of Joseph's marriages were consummated.  And again, why wouldn't they have been (unless Joseph lived polygamy differently than others did)?

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There really is no convincing people that what Joseph did is right.  There are too many stubborn traditions in the way for them to see past.
Personally, I know that Joseph did nothing wrong.  Everything he did was in keeping with God's commands.
Can't prove that to people, and that is probably the way it is supposed to be.  No faith necessary if we could prove it.

I get that JHLPROF.  I always appreciate your attitude even when others disagree and I really do enjoy reading your posts and views.  You certainly have no trouble stating your beliefs and never back away from them.  I respect that.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

Just now, JulieM said:

I get that JHLPROF.  I always appreciate your attitude and really do enjoy reading your posts and views.  You certainly have no trouble stating your beliefs and never back away from them.  I respect that.

Thank you.

I happen to work around the corner from a small local cemetery.  Sometimes I like to head over there for my lunch for the peace and quiet.  I did this yesterday.
I felt like taking a wonder through the gravestones and this being Utah the cemetery was filled with memorials to faithful pioneers, including polygamists.

As I passed through the graves marked with the "Faith in Every Footstep" designation and I noticed the polygamist graves among them,  my conversations and debates on this thread earlier yesterday seemed SO ridiculous.  I actually felt the spirit and a deep admiration come over me for their faith and willingness to sacrifice.
We really do have some nerve questioning whether what they did was moral or claiming they were deceived.  One of the graves had loving tribute from his children to a man buried next to three wives.  One of the wives appeared to have been in her late teens when she married him in his early 40s.  And their descendants absolutely honored them for it.  I felt tears of joy for these righteous saints who obeyed.

Really, just who do we think we are who have never been called upon to sacrifice our traditions, doubts, and feelings in order to do what we believe God has commanded?
Even if we think they were mistaken, we are SO arrogant to question their morality or intelligence in keeping what they believed came from God.  Especially given how little we are called upon to sacrifice to attend our local ward.
I may debate and discuss, but I have no idea of convincing anyone that doesn't want to be.  I came across a quote from Heber C. Kimball that I feel is where I am sadly heading.

• I do not feel as I used to when I see a man going away from the society of the Church of God. I used to be filled with sympathy and plead with them hours and hours, importuning with them until my head would ache and my heart sicken; and I never had the satisfaction in even converting one such character in my life. If I should happen to get one converted he would not stay converted, so I have concluded, and I think wisely, to let them go, and not suffer myself to have any more feelings about it than I would about any of the common occurrences of life.

Faith just doesn't work like that, and cannot be forced.  But I know these early Saints truly earned their rewards.
 

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

"Faith in Christ" is not the only kind of faith.
And rejecting one of the men called by Christ hardly seems to include faith in Christ.
But the children of Israel repeatedly lost faith in Moses.  Many of Lehi's own children lost faith in him.  Noah was mocked.  Peter and Paul persecuted.  Breakoff sects happened in their day too.

Prophets are often rejected and people always think they know better and the prophets weren't speaking for God.  We are SO good at repeating history.

And there are also false prophets. One cannot believe Joseph was a prophet just because he claimed it. One could say that as believers in Christ, we have a sacred duty to determine the validity of Joseph's claim rather than treating it as a foregone conclusion.

And reasonably, does it really make sense to use Moroni's promise to judge Joseph's claim, when the legitimacy of Moroni's promise depends upon the legitimacy of Joseph's claim? 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And there are also false prophets. One cannot believe Joseph was a prophet just because he claimed it. One could say that as believers in Christ, we have a sacred duty to determine the validity of Joseph's claim rather than treating it as a foregone conclusion.

And reasonably, does it really make sense to use Moroni's promise to judge Joseph's claim, when the legitimacy of Moroni's promise depends upon the legitimacy of Joseph's claim?

If we attempt to confirm the validity of a spiritual calling using non-spiritual evidences we will never succeed in determining truth.
You cannot determine if Joseph was a prophet based on history or "evidence" any more than you can determine if Christ was the Son of God using the same methodology.

Leaving aside Moroni's promise, the only way to confirm a spiritual thing is spiritually.  And if God is good enough to condescend to confirm something to you spiritually you should be good enough to accept this as truth, regardless of what the historians and critics claim are facts.  Denying a spiritual witness is the definition of perdition.  The more clear the witness given the more severe the denial becomes.
And learning to differentiate the spirit of God from our own feelings/spirit is one of the steepest learning curves given to man so I am learning slowly not to judge people who are struggling with that.