Age of Consent

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

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!)

I most definitely do compare them. For instance nearly all scholars agree given what we know of 1st century Palestinian culture that Mary would have been 12 - 13 years old. If we're going to raise the problem of Helen Mar Kimball who possibly had no real consummated marriage, then how do we deal with Jesus and Mary? Especially if, as most Christians assume, she was a virgin. i.e. this wasn't Joseph's baby.

If it was wrong for Joseph, wasn't it also wrong for Moses, Abraham and a slew of other major figures. Of course secularists are fine making that claim since they think the idea of God is fundamentally at odds with ethics. But for those who are religious, there does seem to be a rather big double standard at play. 

As for how Joseph lived the principle, I don't think he lived it the way he wanted. First off he loved Emma and Emma clearly was opposed to the idea. Second it was the source of a lot of violence and persecution to the saints. Had Joseph lived to flee to Utah would things have been different? Almost certainly the way Brigham practiced it in a different way. I think there were problems with Brigham's practice too, although he avoided many of the problems of Nauvoo.

As to early sealings, I don't think all the doctrines of sealing and adoption were restored. Some, as the linked articles note, don't get revealed until Joseph appears to Brigham in 1847 and in part discusses the problems of the chaos of sealings and adoptions. (Again secularists will reject that experience, but it clearly had an effect on Brigham and led to some big changes in how it was all done - leaving much for the millennium which is more or less our policy today)

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.
 

Contextually, you're still treating it as a foregone conclusion. I can relate, but my brain doesn't do that anymore. 

And I take issue with the equivalency with Jesus, even if you do not make it absolute. Jesus Christ does not make demands comparable to Joseph's demands.  Joseph claims very nearly all the authority of Jesus on the earth, while taking very many personal liberties unto himself and while assuming much more control over individual choices with his authority. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Meadowchik

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Contextually, you're still treating it as a foregone conclusion. I can relate, but my brain doesn't do that anymore.

And I take issue with the equivalency with Jesus, even if you do not make it absolute. Jesus Christ does not make demands comparable to Joseph's demands.  Joseph claims very nearly all the authority of Jesus on the earth, while taking very many personal liberties unto himself and while assuming much more control over individual choices with his authority.

Ok, maybe I am a bit because it is a forgone conclusion for me.  I stopped questioning Joseph's calling years ago after several spiritual witnesses that have continued over the years and in spite of every misinterpreted act of his life the critics point to.  I recognize that not everyone has reached that point and allow them the right to get there however they choose.  But if something is true it IS a foregone conclusion, and I believe it to be true.

I think we often have a Disneyfied vision of Christ in our heads, all peace, love, and let it be.  I don't think the popular "all you need is love" vision of Christ fits very well into the actual Christ of scripture.
If you don't think Christ made demands like Joseph did I suggest you revisit the NT.

As for the personal liberties?  I don't think any personal liberty Joseph took can even come close to claiming to be God's special, unique only begotten Son who will eventually judge everyone else and whose commandments we'd better obey or face eternal damnation.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

53 minutes ago, JulieM said:

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)?

I don't have any problem with JS consummating his marriages. We just lack the children that would have been produced, except for those by Emma. Those other wives were fertile, as was Joseph. I don't know how to reconcile the issue other that to say there is no evidence of it.

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't have any problem with JS consummating his marriages. We just lack the children that would have been produced, except for those by Emma. Those other wives were fertile, as was Joseph. I don't know how to reconcile the issue other that to say there is no evidence of it.

No children does not equal no evidence.   The testimonies and other statements are very strong evidence.  There are many reasons there may not be any children from the marriages even if consummated.

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

3 hours 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?  

Yes, that was very strange and unkind of JS to do. He appears to play God sometimes, IMO.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.
 

I loved reading this.  I have no doubt that many wonderful, believing saints lived polygamy faithfully. My ancestors are among those who did and I've read their words describing their sacrifices and sorrows (and some joys too) from practicing polygamy.   

I just do not believe it came from God, but believe that it came from man.  That doesn't mean their experiences were any less real or important for them and I respect their right to believe as they did (just as I do with you too).

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

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).

 

True it is possible that Joseph could have married a bunch of infertile women.  What is clear however that there was no intent on Joseph part to have a bunch of kids with these women.  One would think that at least 20% of them would have had a kid.  Its an argument of silence.  What bothers me is those of default to the position that if someone is married, then it must mean sex happened.  Sexless marriages do exist in the world.  I see 4 possibilities

1.  Joseph have fertility issues

2.  The women Joseph was married to had fertility issues

3.  Sex was happening in most of these marriages but Joseph was just terribly unlucky

4.  Not a whole lot of sex was going on.  Perhaps far less than people think.

Lots of NBA players have been far more successful with having kids with lots of women than Joseph had with even more wives than those players. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Ahab]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

All of it would be permissive and abusive. Even if there is never any sex, a 14 year old isn't ready to make a lifelong commitment, much less an eternal one. 

I'm guessing you think 8 years old is not old enough to make any lifelong commitments, either, then.

Oh well.

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, maybe I am a bit because it is a forgone conclusion for me.  I stopped questioning Joseph's calling years ago after several spiritual witnesses that have continued over the years and in spite of every misinterpreted act of his life the critics point to.  I recognize that not everyone has reached that point and allow them the right to get there however they choose.  But if something is true it IS a foregone conclusion, and I believe it to be true.

I think we often have a Disneyfied vision of Christ in our heads, all peace, love, and let it be.  I don't think the popular "all you need is love" vision of Christ fits very well into the actual Christ of scripture.
If you don't think Christ made demands like Joseph did I suggest you revisit the NT.

As for the personal liberties?  I don't think any personal liberty Joseph took can even come close to claiming to be God's special, unique only begotten Son who will eventually judge everyone else and whose commandments we'd better obey or face eternal damnation.

As I said, I understand the foregone conclusion mindset. I used to have it and had spiritual experiences of my own which I believed affirmed it at the time.

No need to address some loveydovey unserious version of Jesus, either. 

That Joseph made more demands and took more personal liberties is an obvious given: Joseph repeated all Jesus' claims on the children of men AND added upon those his claims as the new representative of Christ on the earth. 

Same goes for the demands. Joseph does not let the direct demands Jesus made be sufficient, he adds upon those demands many more. And Joseph does this with personal proclivities that exhibit the appearance of evil which are then incorporated in his demands on his followers.

And what ind of kingdom did Jesus establish? Compare that to the kingdom Joseph tried to establish, which was quite different.

[JulieM]

19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

True it is possible that Joseph could have married a bunch of infertile women.  What is clear however that there was no intent on Joseph part to have a bunch of kids with these women.  

The women wouldn't have had to be infertile.  There are many reasons (and methods) for a woman not getting pregnant.  

Are you one who believes none of Joseph's plural marriages were consummated?

Edited April 19, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't have any problem with JS consummating his marriages. We just lack the children that would have been produced, except for those by Emma. Those other wives were fertile, as was Joseph. I don't know how to reconcile the issue other that to say there is no evidence of it.

Personally, I go the "lack of opportunity" route given the compacted 1841-1844 timeframe (the exception of course being Fanny Alger).
We have his journals for those 3-4 years.  And given the number of wives, odds of pregnancy, and his location most of the time I think we have a very good idea why no children were produced.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

As I said, I understand the foregone conclusion mindset. I used to have it and had spiritual experiences of my own which I believed affirmed it at the time.

No need to address some loveydovey unserious version of Jesus, either.

That Joseph made more demands and took more personal liberties is an obvious given: Joseph repeated all Jesus' claims on the children of men AND added upon those his claims as the new representative of Christ on the earth.

Same goes for the demands. Joseph does not let the direct demands Jesus made be sufficient, he adds upon those demands many more. And Joseph does this with personal proclivities that exhibit the appearance of evil which are then incorporated in his demands on his followers.

And what ind of kingdom did Jesus establish? Compare that to the kingdom Joseph tried to establish, which was quite different.

Personally, I see little difference in what Christ attempted to establish and what Joseph attempted to establish.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

 What is clear however that there was no intent on Joseph part to have a bunch of kids with these women.

I don't believe that at all.

[Meadowchik]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally, I see little difference in what Christ attempted to establish and what Joseph attempted to establish.

On the contrary, the differences are significant. Shall we talk about the differences in the kingdoms they established or tried to establish?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

On the contrary, the differences are significant. Shall we talk about the differences in the kingdoms they established or tried to establish?

Actually I am more interested in the one that Christ said would be established for his return than the one attempted during mortality.
That is the one Joseph worked towards and the fair comparison.  The Millennial Kingdom.
But I think that would derail the thread far beyond the topic.

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What is clear however that there was no intent on Joseph part to have a bunch of kids with these women.

What sources to you have that make this "clear"?

[thesometimesaint]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The women wouldn't have had to be infertile.  There are many reasons (and methods) for a woman not getting pregnant.  

Are you one who believes none of Joseph's plural marriages consummated?

That's the point they were fertile. They had children before, and after their marriage to Joseph. Just not by Joseph.

There is no indications that those women used those methods

I don't care either way. Just like I don't that Abraham had children from two of his wives.

Edited April 19, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Meadowchik]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually I am more interested in the one that Christ said would be established for his return than the one attempted during mortality.
That is the one Joseph worked towards and the fair comparison.  The Millennial Kingdom.
But I think that would derail the thread far beyond the topic.

I am more interested in the kingdom Christ established in his mortality: fulfillment of the Law of Moses, baptism, True Religion, the Beatitudes, the First and Second Greatest Commandments, the doctrine of two gathered in His name,  and the Comforter. His spiritual kingdom.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

True it is possible that Joseph could have married a bunch of infertile women.  What is clear however that there was no intent on Joseph part to have a bunch of kids with these women.  One would think that at least 20% of them would have had a kid.  Its an argument of silence.  What bothers me is those of default to the position that if someone is married, then it must mean sex happened.  Sexless marriages do exist in the world.  I see 4 possibilities

1.  Joseph have fertility issues

2.  The women Joseph was married to had fertility issues

3.  Sex was happening in most of these marriages but Joseph was just terribly unlucky

4.  Not a whole lot of sex was going on.  Perhaps far less than people think.

Lots of NBA players have been far more successful with having kids with lots of women than Joseph had with even more wives than those players. 

How long do you believe Joseph was married to most of these women without looking it up?

[Calm]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect you're thinking of some of Jonathan Stapley's papers on the theology of adoption. He's touched on it several times at BCC and it's been discussed at the Juvenile Instructor at times as well. His main paper is "Adoptive Sealing Ritual in Mormonism." Sam Brown also has written on it like his paper "Early Mormon Adoption Theology and the Mechanics of Salvation." I think it's clear that these issues and polygamy were connected in Joseph's mind. But he didn't really given any clear teaching on the subject in any extant records IMO. The theology continues to develop well into the 20th century. Part of that is of course a reaction to the cessation of polygamy.

Fundamentally though Jospeh taught that the sealing of families has to be done so that everyone is sealed to someone. If their parents reject the gospel then they need to be sealed to someone else. That appears to be where there were what Compton calls dynastic polygamous marriages. It was a way of doing that. I suspect that from a contemporary Mormon perspective though that most of these things will have to be done in the Millennium after most of the work for the dead is done and people have had sufficient opportunity to accept or reject the fulness of Christ's teachings. As Sam Brown notes, a lot of this is a kind of mirror of the view we are adopted as Christ's children in the atonement. (See Mosiah 15 for this notion of seed -- although more immediate context for most people were various Pauline texts on adoption)

The reasonable criticism of Joseph in all this is that if adoptive sealings could be done eventually why the rush to have families sealed to Joseph by marriage rather than as his children? That isn't something I think historians have a good grasp on yet. The other obvious question is why people thought these sealings would guarantee anything, given that there already was a theology that the were valid only if sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. So the sealing alone guaranteed nothing. While again a lot of that theology developed later, there are some oddities here. There's just a lot of vagueness in the topic.

My guess is that the underlying theological drive is the idea that salvation simply isn't an individual thing, such as Protestantism emphasizes so strongly. While there are some individual aspects to salvation, ultimately we are saved as a group and a community. (This notion of group was of course quite common in ancient Israel but far more alien to Greek and Roman culture)

Found it, I am pretty sure...format isn't what I remember and I remember it as being shorter and more to the point I focused on but if I read it after midnight my brain gets rather creative.  Since the line I am going to paste is what I remember, I am going to assume this is the one and that I probably read several that day/night and they melded into a summary of new thoughts that only at times related to this aricle:

http://juvenileinstructor.org/my-father-had-but-one-ewe-lamb-joseph-smith-and-helen-heber-and-vilate-kimball/

"The story of Heber and Helen Mar Kimball may provide a window into the shift of Smith’s marital practices from married to single women: upset at the prospect of sharing wives, Smith’s inner circle may have preferred that he marry their daughters instead"

 

[Calm]

This is the part that is most important, imo, in explaining (potentially) what was happening:

"The sexuality of Smith’s marriages has been much debated, but boiling Smith’s marital relationships down to sex misses the point. The point of the marriages, again, was best described by Mary Lightner, both in her description of the 1831 “sealing” and in the proposal to her by Smith: to be united with Smith so as to go with him into the Father’s kingdom. This was something that many early Mormons wanted. Oliver Huntington said that “soon after Dimick had given our sisters Zina & Prescinda to Joseph as wives for eternity,” Smith offered Dimick any reward he wanted. Dimick requested “that where you and your fathers family are, there I and my fathers family may also be.”[1] Todd Compton argues that a number of polyandrous husbands may have known about the sealing, particularly Henry Jacobs and Windsor Lyon.[2]…

As all the sealings during Smith’s life were between men and women (none were between persons of the same gender), being sealed to a common spouse may have been the means by which men were sealed to each other in Smith’s system. Such is suggested in Bernheisel’s sealings: he was sealed to the wife of his brother, which may have sealed him to his brother in Smith’s system. When Smith changed from marrying married to single women (discussed below), Heber C. Kimball felt that having his daughter sealed to Smith allowed him to be sealed to Smith as well. The popular ancient Jewish writer, Flavius Josephus, expressed a similar idea in his telling of the story of Pharaoh taking Abraham’s wife that Smith likely read (see Chapter Six). “And when he had found out the truth,” Josephus explained, “he excused himself to Abram, that supposing the woman to be his sister, and not his wife, he set his affections on her, and desiring an affinity with him by marrying her, but not as incited by lust to abuse her.”[3] “Affinity” was the term used by Perfectionists to explain the special relationship between soul mates (Smith might also have used this term). Perhaps men who felt this kind of spiritual connection for each other, felt like Josephus’s Pharaoh that marrying a close relative or even the wife of the special friend was a means by which men could be linked to each other."

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I am more interested in the kingdom Christ established in his mortality

That one didn't last.  It died out with the Apostles.

[MormonVideoGame]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Because the brain is continuously developing from adolescence to about the age 25, the younger the person, the less able they are to give meaningful consent. That's clear, yes? A 14 year old less mentally developed than an 18 year old. 

In my first comment I wrote, "Biology doesn't care about the calendar. There are 15 year olds more mature than 18 year olds. If it is legal in your state or country, and with the permission of the parents then there is nothing wrong that a 15 year old marries a 38 year old" 

Let me change that to 16 years. I have a friend that got legally married (with parents approval) at age 16. She married a 22 year old.  You against that? 

You think 18 year olds should be allowed to join the military? or get other dangerous jobs? Is it morally wrong? If not, why?  

On 4/18/2017 at 3:32 PM, Calm said:

You need to demonstrate that these open marriages are more likely to stay intact than marriages that are intended to be faithful before claiming "we need open marriage".

See study 

Bergstrand, Curtis, and Jennifer Blevins Williams. "Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers." Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 3.10 (2000)

The limitations are discussed 

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[USU78]

On 4/17/2017 at 1:29 PM, Gray said:

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). 

Genesis 34 addresses date rape  ...  so there's that:  https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/34?lang=eng