Age of Consent

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

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"

 

I only skimmed through because I'm on my way out the door, from the skimming I gather it was about keeping those he loved after this life? I'll read it more thoroughly when I get home tonight. Thanks for rounding it up!

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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. 

Over and over I have to bring up the natural birth control method, I hate saying the description, but think this is possibly why there were no children.

[Calm]

I believe someone said something about how they couldn't believe that a God wouldn't have provided more information on sealings/marriages given how it is of such prime importance in our doctrine.

For me, I think we might be inflating the errors based on our belief we have it right at this time.

We have been promised that God is going to set things right, teach us all the truths we need to know, ensure the right ordinances are performed, etc. sometime before judgment comes and we take the time to figure out what all of our past existence has been leading towards and which of our potential selves we wish to truly become.

We have Joseph Smith on record of saying it is going to take a long time not only while living, but after death to comprehend the Endowment...which means to me there must be some pretty significant stuff that mortals can't get their heads around, otherwise we could learn it now or at least it wouldn't be that hard to pick up.  Is there any fundamental doctrine that we have that is that hard to understand at this point?  And Joseph nowhere that I am aware of stated he himself already comprehended the endowment, so it seems to me he included himself in that category of needing lots of time and effort to comprehend God's ways after death.

And that would include, imo, the ordinance of sealing just as it includes the ordinance of Endowment.  Likely the Sacrament and Baptism as well.  All of the ordinances deal with our eternal relationship with God and our eternal relationships with each other.  We can't understand a relationship until we understand those in the relationship, the howsand whys of interaction.

Summing this up, what we know and could understand and make use of sealings and our eternal natures is so small imo we couldn't get sealings right no matter how much instruction God gives us.  He would be in essence teaching quantum mechanics to a toddler who is having a hard time constructing a block tower.  Remember we are taking about relationships that are intended to last eternally, billions and trillions of years to the trillionth power is a shorter time period.  Relationships that will reflect interactions with trillions of individuals in all their relationships...and we will in some very significant, all important manner be ONE while still being our own fully perfected self.

This means anything we do these days is far away from the ultimate form.  Our current method is only a step or two further in the right direction (I hope) of a journey of hundreds of miles.  To be critical of the way Joseph went about it, offended by the harm he caused by lying and altering how it was undertaken as they lived it is being arrogantly overconfident in our own stumblings.  200 years from now I expect our descendants to look back with some horror on how we mistreated each other in our relationships.

Therefore to me, it is likely we participate in sealings today not to 'get it right', but to experiment so we begin to understand the value of putting great effort and time (eternity in fact) into getting it right eventually.  There are few better ways to teach the value of doing something correctly and healthily than royally screwing it up with good intentions, especially if one's goals are contradictory and one is trying to achieve a balance.

So I see a lot of commandments given that amount to head generally in that direction without too many how tos attached to them.  There are also some howtos in scripture that I think were men's translations of vivid, overwhelming impressions from God. Did God actually inspire his prophets to build temples or tabernacles a certain way or was it their mind shifting into overdrive after God's spirit impressed upon them the importance of the temple, which led to a visualization of the temple they were to construct. It is, imo, easier to attach value to something concrete rather than an abstract principle.  A vision of a temple is concrete compared to a sense of sacred space for worship.  We have an example of the need to demonstrate the importance of obedience through concrete action in the "hedge" Jews built around the Law.

I think D&C 132 is in part the hedge Joseph's mind created around the Law of Celestial Marriage due to him not being able to understand more than superficial glimpses of its magnificence.

Joseph might have realized this and that is why he didn't follow the instructions there at times.  He could also just not cared (seems unlikely) or thought he was above the usual rules (given the times he includes in the scriptures scolding from God, it again seems unlikely to me, but he wouldn't be the first man who let his spiritual authority go to his head).

 It is more likely though imo that he saw revelation as expansive and believed he could adapt the sealing ordinance to fulfill another need, not just sealing husbands and wives, etc., but creating an extended celestial clan.  If the marriage sealing was for a related purpose, he would in this view not need to follow the laws that were meant for the original purpose.  One could look at Baptism as an example of varying procedures.  Recording and witnesses were not always used from what I have read when baptisms were done for healing purposes.  I don't know if the words used varied at all.  Wonder if anyone has made an in depth study of this.

This is of course speculation built on speculation, though I see it as logical and ultimately founded on actual behaviour (which I would given I am the one doing the construction, lol).  I am not presenting this idea to try to convince anyone of anything, but that Joseph's actions and reasonings weren't as cut and dried as we assume from our place looking back.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I only skimmed through because I'm on my way out the door, from the skimming I gather it was about keeping those he loved after this life? I'll read it more thoroughly when I get home tonight. Thanks for rounding it up!

Yes, see this quote that includes this:  "to be united with Smith so as to go with him into the Father’s kingdom. This was something that many early Mormons wanted"

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, Gray said:

Cultures change pretty quickly, but human biology does not change so quickly. We understand it better than our ancestors. 

A similar issue is child labor. We understand now that it's harmful to children to put them to work all day long in factories. Moral development is a continuous process. 

I agree. But we still should not judge past generations based upon what we know now.

Also, biological and emotional maturity are not the same.

[Glenn101]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Over and over I have to bring up the natural birth control method, I hate saying the description, but think this is possibly why there were no children.

It was a common joke around my home ward lo these many years ago: Q - What do you call people that practice the rhythm methd of birth control.??? A- Parents.... 

 

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Over and over I have to bring up the natural birth control method, I hate saying the description, but think this is possibly why there were no children.

Given the limited times he could visit such people I'm not sure the rhythm method was workable - and as others note it's hardly foolproof. Thus Bennet apparently arranging abortions in Nauvoo. That Joseph didn't have anything like that is I think significant. While hardly an open and shut case I confess I think the weight for the dynastic marriages is that they were primarily spiritual and not conjugal.

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Again you depend on Joseph Smith for that. It's all very circular.

Do you really believe that the Beatitudes have no prevailing power, that faith in Christ before 1820 bore no fruit? That people could not love each other or God? That True Religion was unlivable? That the Spirit could never abide when two or more were gathered in Christ's name?

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I agree. But we still should not judge past generations based upon what we know now.

Also, biological and emotional maturity are not the same.

Yet we shouldn't be granting infinite immunity from accountability, either.  

Probably the biggest single difference between the times of the church's founding and now, is the magical worldview. 

One cannot appreciate the meanings of their words or experiences adequately without being aware of this.

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Again you depend on Joseph Smith for that. It's all very circular.

Do you really believe that the Beatitudes have no prevailing power, that faith in Christ before 1820 bore no fruit? That people could not love each other or God? That True Religion was unlivable? That the Spirit could never abide when two or more were gathered in Christ's name?

Are you thinking of becoming Catholic or Orthodox then?

[Meadowchik]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you thinking of becoming Catholic or Orthodox then?

No. I feel very reluctant to latch on to any organisational religions, but I can be friends with them  I may visit the village church from time to time. 

But the relief and comfort I feel in the teachings of Christ is something I am extremely grateful to continue to have.

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Again you depend on Joseph Smith for that. It's all very circular.

Do you really believe that the Beatitudes have no prevailing power, that faith in Christ before 1820 bore no fruit? That people could not love each other or God? That True Religion was unlivable? That the Spirit could never abide when two or more were gathered in Christ's name?

I truly believe that faith in Christ had power and bore fruit at any time in history, but that is very different from the ability to return to God's presence and obey Christ's commandments.
 

Quote

No. I feel very reluctant to latch on to any organisational religions, but I can be friends with them  I may visit the village church from time to time.

But the relief and comfort I feel in the teachings of Christ is something I am extremely grateful to continue to have.

I believe that from time to time many people may need to take a break from the "living" of the laws and ordinances of the gospel and focus on their personal first principles.  As long as no sin or covenant breaking is involved in that I see no problem.  I myself was inactive for a little while.

There are times in our life where I truly think we need to reduce the gospel down to faith in Jesus Christ and Repentance.  NOT to reject any other light we may possess, but to turn our focus back to the first principles.  I have been spending much more time in prayer and repentance lately than I have before.  Sometimes the gospel really needs to be about reestablishing that personal relation with Heavenly Father and his Son instead of focusing on meatier doctrines and laws.  But eventually if that communication with God and Christ is actually achieved and repentance is sincere we are all led to the same place.

Edited April 20, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No. I feel very reluctant to latch on to any organisational religions, but I can be friends with them  I may visit the village church from time to time. 

But the relief and comfort I feel in the teachings of Christ is something I am extremely grateful to continue to have.

That would be wonderful, I'm glad you and Jeanne kept that part of religion, good for you both. I'd love to have a personal relationship with Him. To have a constant guide or friend or ?

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No. I feel very reluctant to latch on to any organisational religions, but I can be friends with them  I may visit the village church from time to time. 

But the relief and comfort I feel in the teachings of Christ is something I am extremely grateful to continue to have.

Thank you for posting here, Meadowchik.  Keep on teaching me with your thoughtful and friendly style. 

[Jeanne]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That would be wonderful, I'm glad you and Jeanne kept that part of religion, good for you both. I'd love to have a personal relationship with Him. To have a constant guide or friend or ?

Or...the same Savior who died for everyone's sins.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Or...the same Savior who died for everyone's sins.

Salvation and redemption from death are truly wonderful gifts.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That would be wonderful, I'm glad you and Jeanne kept that part of religion, good for you both. I'd love to have a personal relationship with Him. To have a constant guide or friend or ?

I wish it for you then, and truly hope you can find it.

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I wish it for you then, and truly hope you can find it.

Me too! 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Me too! 

Me three! 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Me three! 

Me four!

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Yet we shouldn't be granting infinite immunity from accountability, either.  

Probably the biggest single difference between the times of the church's founding and now, is the magical worldview. 

One cannot appreciate the meanings of their words or experiences adequately without being aware of this.

We are not the ones that grant immunity or require accountability. As I noted before, we are not in possession of all of the facts. God is and I defer any judgement to Him.

You lost me on the "magic worldview." Don't know what it has to do with the age of consent. 

I am not convinced that there was a "magic worldview" among the early Saints. But that would be discussion material for another thread.

Glenn

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Probably the biggest single difference between the times of the church's founding and now, is the magical worldview. 

One cannot appreciate the meanings of their words or experiences adequately without being aware of this.

I don't think I'd agree with that. Depending upon what you mean by magic worldview I think it's as much part of contemporary Mormonism as it was in Joseph's day. I probably wouldn't use the term magic realism just because "magic" is an ambiguous and pejorative term. When Damon Linker guest blogged at T&S he called it an enchanted world. (Linker is a relatively well known non-Mormon journalist/commentator who used to be an editor at First Things) I like that description of enchanted world rather than magic for a variety of reasons.

Now what I do think is a difference is that early Mormons were couched in the remnants of renaissance philosophy, especially what was called hermeticism. This was wrapped up not only in their connection to masonry but the very way they saw things like Egypt or divinization. Those elements are mostly gone from Mormonism or at least stripped to mere theological positions rather than a symbolic lens through which to view the universe. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. To me hermeticism, cabalism, and so forth were just there much as protestantism in order to convey some ideas containing what had been lost from Christianity. 

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

We are not the ones that grant immunity or require accountability. As I noted before, we are not in possession of all of the facts. God is and I defer any judgement to Him.

You lost me on the "magic worldview." Don't know what it has to do with the age of consent. 

I am not convinced that there was a "magic worldview" among the early Saints. But that would be discussion material for another thread.

Glenn

We don't have to judge the eternal state of anyone's soul, but we are indeed obligated to righteously judge the fruits of any who claim to speak for God. We were warned of false prophets and it is a duty to do our best to not allow men to deceive us.

An example of the magical worldview is the Cumorah stories of treasure. Even before Joseph found the plates there, his family believed the hill was a ripe ground for treasure and they had sought it. Joseph sought treasure with his peepstone, the same stone he later used to "translate" the Book of Mormon.

Joseph would say that spirits guarded a particular treasure and that, if the treasure was not found where he had seen it was with his peepstone, that it had been moved inder the ground to a different location.

Stones, divining rods, and frequent experience with good and evil spirits were common in Joseph's entourage. And these spirits were seen with "second sight," meaning not with normal human sight but spiritually. Witnesses to the plates saw and handled them spiritually, not with real eyes and hands. Joseph would commonly see many beings with his second sight, appearing to him while invisible to others.

The magical worldview reflects the intensity of interest people had in spiritual things, in powers, in treasure that moved under the ground, in strange spirits to be found everywhere, and their willingness to believe that some people had special spiritual abilities. 

In the beginning, Joseph's following was made up almost completely of treasure hunters. As the following grew so did the variety of personsl backgrounds of people. Yet superstition was still quite common, including the belief in magical things that could bring good fortune or evil cursings.

So why would Helen Mar Kimball's father want to offer his daughter's hand in marriage to the prophet? He believed in finding something special that would reassure him spiritually. It's not unlike people seeking assurance in the Second Anointing. Rather than being more focused on a Christlike life creating a righteous spiritual kingdom now bringing people closer to God in love and truth, the magical worldview tends to seek immediate blessings or protect from cursings through some transaction that is relatively easier than continual righteous living.

HMK's father was willing to make this transaction, to secure salvation for his family in exchange for his daughter.

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think I'd agree with that. Depending upon what you mean by magic worldview I think it's as much part of contemporary Mormonism as it was in Joseph's day. I probably wouldn't use the term magic realism just because "magic" is an ambiguous and pejorative term. When Damon Linker guest blogged at T&S he called it an enchanted world. (Linker is a relatively well known non-Mormon journalist/commentator who used to be an editor at First Things) I like that description of enchanted world rather than magic for a variety of reasons.

Now what I do think is a difference is that early Mormons were couched in the remnants of renaissance philosophy, especially what was called hermeticism. This was wrapped up not only in their connection to masonry but the very way they saw things like Egypt or divinization. Those elements are mostly gone from Mormonism or at least stripped to mere theological positions rather than a symbolic lens through which to view the universe. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. To me hermeticism, cabalism, and so forth were just there much as protestantism in order to convey some ideas containing what had been lost from Christianity. 

Yes, the magical is present in today's Mormonism, but I was saying that it represents a principal difference between the world of their times and the world or our times. It's much less prevalent in the world (Mormon and non-Mormon) today, or the belief atleast manifests itself much differently.