Age of Consent

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, Gray said:

I guess that's a start, although there should be real consequences for an adult dating or marrying a young teen in the church. The current standards have no teeth.

In the US you are legally an adult at 18. Even if I weren't already married, at 65 I have no desire to date let alone marry someone more that a generation younger than I am. There just isn't enough commonality.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Calm, your question suggests something very different than what Gray was suggesting and I suspect you know that.

I don't play those kinds of games and I don't appreciate being labeled as deceptive.  I am not all knowing and at times I misread others' posts.  Please feel free to correct me when you believe I have, ask for clarification of my thought, or whatever, I am not going to get offended as I pretty much accept as given misunderstanding occurs more than understanding, but it is a waste of yours and my time to accuse me of doing something that I just don't do.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hope that any leader who is aware of a 38 year old marrying a young teen would be wary and counsel the couple accordingly. If it appears to be an abusive or manipulative relationship, I hope a leader would hold the 38 year old accountable.

I would hope a leader aware of any abusive relationship would speak up.  "Manipulative"...depends on the type of manipulation involved.

I don't remember any case in 50+ years in the Church where there was someone older than a few years of a young teen marrying the young teen and the only young teen marriages I know of are where teens got pregnant by other teens and got married to raise the child together in a family.

Perhaps someone else has seen young teen with older spouse happen?

Edited April 24, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

19 hours ago, Gray said:

I guess that's a start, although there should be real consequences for an adult dating or marrying a young teen in the church. The current standards have no teeth.

Rephrasing my question as apparently it comes across poorly but I am not sure why, I take it I have misunderstood what you are saying, but what has not been clarified so I would appreciate you doing so.  Thank you.

I assumed what you meant by "real consequences" was disciplinary action.  Is this an accuarate reading?  If not, could you explain what you meant please.

If it is meant to be disciplinary action and with "teeth", it seems to me this would require an actual policy as leaders are not given free rein to call councils on behaviours they personally find problematic or even offensive but are not against church standards...which is a very good thing imo.  I don't think anyone wants leaders to be pulling kids or adults in saying they need to repent of dating nonmembers or someone poorer than them or of a different ethnic group (given the large numbers of leaders, I would hope there are no racists among them, but since I am aware of worse character flaws in leaders, I suspect there are likely some).

So if you want something with teeth, what do you have in mind?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

In the US you are legally an adult at 18. Even if I weren't already married, at 65 I have no desire to date let alone marry someone more that a generation younger than I am. There just isn't enough commonality.

I agree with this principle.
But I have to ask - does it take into account the eternal nature of marriage in Mormonism?

I completely agree that the bigger the age gap the harder things would be.  But will that disappear on the other side?
And are we marrying only for what marriage in this life will be or are we considered the eternities?

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Rephrasing my question as apparently it comes across poorly but I am not sure why, I take it I have misunderstood what you are saying, but what has not been clarified so I would appreciate you doing so.  Thank you.

I assumed what you meant by "real consequences" was disciplinary action.  Is this an accuarate reading?  If not, could you explain what you meant please.

If it is meant to be disciplinary action and with "teeth", it seems to me this would require an actual policy as leaders are not given free rein to call councils on behaviours they personally find problematic or even offensive but are not against church standards...which is a very good thing imo.  I don't think anyone wants leaders to be pulling kids or adults in saying they need to repent of dating nonmembers or someone poorer than them or of a different ethnic group (given the large numbers of leaders, I would hope there are no racists among them, but since I am aware of worse character flaws in leaders, I suspect there are likely some).

So if you want something with teeth, what do you have in mind?

Yes, I do mean disciplinary action. As in, treating it the way we might treat adultery.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a pretty strong cultural norm. I can't see any active adult member in say the US marrying someone 16 or younger. 

Yes, but we're an international church.

[Gray]

On 4/23/2017 at 5:59 PM, pogi said:

Perhaps they would grow some teeth if there was actually something to bite into.  Are you anticipating a spike in parent sanctioned teen marriages to older adult men in the church or something?  

I have no idea how often this happens across the church? Maybe it's rare? I suspect it is, but currently there is no serious doctrine or policy on the subject.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Yes, I do mean disciplinary action. As in, treating it the way we might treat adultery.

Thank you.  

I am not sure how then my question was wrong.  Perhaps Happy Jack can explain to me what he sees me suggesting, I will alter it a little bit to make sure I don't look like I am not asking a sincere question:

"Do you think leaders should get more involved in telling people who they should or should not date or marry, with stronger penalties?"

Given your answer, this appears to be "yes".  Have I misinterpreted it somehow?  This is not a gotcha question...I am just surprised you think bishops should be expanding what they oversee in terms of sexual morality counseling.  I am not fond of the idea myself for any reason, age difference or something else.

Also, have you seen this actually occurring or is this more of a preventative measure in your view, just in case?  I am trying to think of something we have a policy on that is something that is hardly ever seen...I suppose murder, but even that seems more common than this as I know a couple of people who have been murdered while I have never run across this type of marriage.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, but we're an international church.

That's a fair point but makes things far more complex especially in places like Africa where the sexual norms already are a struggle for the church.

[pogi]

15 hours ago, Gray said:

I have no idea how often this happens across the church? Maybe it's rare? I suspect it is, but currently there is no serious doctrine or policy on the subject.

I don't understand where you are coming from then.  Why the push for stricter policy or doctrine changes where no real problem is even suspected?

 

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with this principle.
But I have to ask - does it take into account the eternal nature of marriage in Mormonism?

I completely agree that the bigger the age gap the harder things would be.  But will that disappear on the other side?
And are we marrying only for what marriage in this life will be or are we considered the eternities?

I only remember my earthly experience. In the eternities what does 20 years(One generation) really mean? 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I only remember my earthly experience. In the eternities what does 20 years(One generation) really mean?

Sort of my point.
While I am not in favor of 40 year olds marrying 18 year olds, if it is what the spirit dictates and the marriage is for eternity why is that seen as such a big issue?
Just as with Joseph and Helen, (assuming it was a sealing only and no relations were had) what difference does it make.  In the eternities they are now husband and wife, anything unusual about their sealing on earth is centuries in the past and has no bearing on their present or future.

Age differences are hard.  Some age differences are frowned upon.  In the grand scheme of eternity no age difference will matter at all.
 

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, but we're an international church.

I missed this earlier.  

This is true.  Would be interested to see how much leaders need to deal with this.  That and arranged marriages.

Edited April 25, 2017 by Calm

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sort of my point.
While I am not in favor of 40 year olds marrying 18 year olds, if it is what the spirit dictates and the marriage is for eternity why is that seen as such a big issue?
Just as with Joseph and Helen, (assuming it was a sealing only and no relations were had) what difference does it make.  In the eternities they are now husband and wife, anything unusual about their sealing on earth is centuries in the past and has no bearing on their present or future.

Age differences are hard.  Some age differences are frowned upon.  In the grand scheme of eternity no age difference will matter at all.
 

I don't know what, if any, differences will count for in the eternities. I have a hard enough time in this life.

[Gray]

On 4/24/2017 at 9:08 PM, Calm said:

Thank you.  

I am not sure how then my question was wrong.  Perhaps Happy Jack can explain to me what he sees me suggesting, I will alter it a little bit to make sure I don't look like I am not asking a sincere question:

"Do you think leaders should get more involved in telling people who they should or should not date or marry, with stronger penalties?"

Given your answer, this appears to be "yes".  Have I misinterpreted it somehow?  This is not a gotcha question...I am just surprised you think bishops should be expanding what they oversee in terms of sexual morality counseling.  I am not fond of the idea myself for any reason, age difference or something else.

Also, have you seen this actually occurring or is this more of a preventative measure in your view, just in case?  I am trying to think of something we have a policy on that is something that is hardly ever seen...I suppose murder, but even that seems more common than this as I know a couple of people who have been murdered while I have never run across this type of marriage.

My perspective is that these kinds of relationships are abusive. My concern is for protecting minors from abuse.

[Gray]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't understand where you are coming from then.  Why the push for stricter policy or doctrine changes where no real problem is even suspected?

 

I think it sends a message to adults who prey on minors. Zero tolerance for that sort of thing across the board

Edited April 26, 2017 by Gray

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

My perspective is that these kinds of relationships are abusive. My concern is for protecting minors from abuse.

In the US you are legally an adult at 18. So even at my age of 65 there is nothing illegal about marrying someone 18 years old.

Edited April 26, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[pogi]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

I think it sends a message to adults who prey on minors. Zero tolerance for that sort of thing across the board

You don't think that members already understand that sexual predation of minors is a sin with zero tolerance?

If marriage to minors is not a problem, and there is already zero tolerance for sexual predation of minors, then lets not waste the brethren's time.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't think that members already understand that sexual predation of minors is a sin with zero tolerance?

If marriage to minors is not a problem, and there is already zero tolerance for sexual predation of minors, then lets not waste the brethren's time.

No, it's not universally understood or agreed to that sexual predation of minors is always wrong. People defend it all the time, depending on who is being accused of the behavior.

If 38 year old Joe Blow went out and married a number of teens we would all be up in arms. When 38 year old Joseph Smith does it, members of the church generally understand and even call him virtuous.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If 38 year old Joe Blow went out and married a number of teens we would all be up in arms. When 38 year old Joseph Smith does it, members of the church generally understand and even call him virtuous.

Because a generally understandable context has been provided for them.

There are many, many things in life we accept because the context makes it acceptable.

Joe Blow going out and killing 100 men is a horror, GI Joe killing 100 men who were terrorists in the act of killing others makes him a hero.

This does not mean we should accept all things.  It means to me we should be respectful in criticism and not assume we are morally superior just because it feels morally superior.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No, it's not universally understood or agreed to that sexual predation of minors is always wrong. People defend it all the time, depending on who is being accused of the behavior.

If 38 year old Joe Blow went out and married a number of teens we would all be up in arms. When 38 year old Joseph Smith does it, members of the church generally understand and even call him virtuous.

Are you stating that such behaviour is always sexually predatory or do you see it as possible that it is not and it should never, ever be defended?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you stating that such behaviour is always sexually predatory or do you see it as possible that it is not and it should never, ever be defended?

I don't know about NEVER. Absolutes make me uncomfortable. I was responding directly to Pogi who stated that everyone already has a Zero Tolerance for behaviors that may be predatory. I disagree with his assessment that everyone already agrees and therefore that the conversation is pointless.

Like other things, what seems predatory to one person may not seem predatory to another. To some, the context will make significant difference while to others it won't matter at all. That is why having the discussion about what is and isn't appropriate is important instead of having the entire discussion dismissed because everyone already agrees with zero tolerance.

Having said that, it would be a very rare and unique circumstance that would make a 38 year old marrying a 14 year old non-predatory. It's hard for me to think of an acceptable situation but acknowledge there could be one that I'm not thinking of. The context that is most often given for these types of relationships seems to be a spiritual claim which I find very troubling and unreliable. If the 38 year old claims to have had a spiritual experience and he uses that to persuade the 14 year old into a relationship, yes, that is manipulative even if he really did have a spiritual experience. When there is a vast discrepancy in age and position there is naturally going to be a very high probability of coercion, which would be inappropriate.

Edited April 26, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Calm]

It needs to be recognized that all manipulation isn't bad.

Parents manipulate all the time in order to teach children correct behaviours.

Currently I am manipulating my mother at times because of her dementia.

Manipulation is wrong in my opinion when it is used because of laziness or to deceive.  The only acceptable form of manipulation to me is to protect when protection cannot be achieved in a timely fashion in another way.  One should always be exceedingly careful to examine one's reasons to avoid using protection and wanting what is best for someone as an excuse for unwarranted manipulation.

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't know about NEVER. Absolutes make me uncomfortable. I was responding directly to Pogi who stated that everyone already has a Zero Tolerance for behaviors that may be predatory. I disagree with his assessment that everyone already agrees and therefore that the conversation is pointless.

Like other things, what seems predatory to one person may not seem predatory to another. To some, the context will make significant difference while to others it won't matter at all. That is why having the discussion about what is and isn't appropriate is important instead of having the entire discussion dismissed because everyone already agrees with zero tolerance.

Having said that, it would be a very rare and unique circumstance that would make a 38 year old marrying a 14 year old non-predatory. It's hard for me to think of an acceptable situation but acknowledge there could be one that I'm not thinking of. The context that is most often given for these types of relationships seems to be a spiritual claim which I find very troubling and unreliable. If the 38 year old claims to have had a spiritual experience and he uses that to persuade the 14 year old into a relationship, yes, that is manipulative even if he really did have a spiritual experience. When there is a vast discrepancy in age and position there is naturally going to be a very high probability of coercion, which would be inappropriate.

You seem to be misunderstanding my point and twisting my words.  

Where is sexual predation of minors happening in the church today with any degree of allowance?  What am I missing here?  Who are these people that the brethren need to communicate to in an unambiguous way that are violating young women and getting away with it?  Are old men marrying young, underage girls in the church today with the approval of their parents and bishops?  Those who are calling for stricter consequences have already acknowledged that they don't suspect that such is the case.  So who do they want this message to be targeted towards?  Who are these predators that are getting away with it?  Are old men sleeping with young girls, unwed, with the approval of bishops?  Give me a break!  There is zero tolerance for such a thing.  So who is left?  Where is the finger pointing?  Well, you have to look back in time to Joseph Smith - and THAT is what this is all about, isn't it?

I am talking about our church today, while you keep jumping back in time to a people and time that you don't understand. 

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by pogi