Age of Consent

[Gray]

5 hours 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.

I don't know that it's understand that these kinds of relationships are wrong in areas where it's legal.

[thesometimesaint]

Cultures change. Few in today's 21st Century American thinks two 18 years old have any business getting married. That was not the case just a relative few years ago.

[bcuzbcuz]

39 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Cultures change. Few in today's 21st Century American thinks two 18 years old have any business getting married. That was not the case just a relative few years ago.

I attended a temple wedding, more than 50 years ago, of a relative, he a day over 19, she barely 18. Not only did they receive the blessing of their respective parents, but the church authorities as well. The marriage collapsed 10 years later. Nowadays, that couple would have received the advice to wait, "what's the hurry?".

I have another relative that waited until they were in their late twenties. A much better situation for success, not a guarantee of course, but better than getting married in their teens.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Cultures change. Few in today's 21st Century American thinks two 18 years old have any business getting married. That was not the case just a relative few years ago.

Unfortunately many mission presidents are still stressing the importance of coming right home and getting married for returning missionaries.  Some of the young men are barely 20 years old now when they get home with no college yet and with little to no means to support themselves.  I don't get that this is still the advice they're getting.  

So many who follow this advice end up moving back in with parents because they can't support themselves (especially if they start having kids right off too).

My friend's son just returned home from his mission and is only 20 years old.  He's in a panic to find a girl and get married because this was almost pounded into him to do by his mission president. My friend is trying to reason with him to relax...wait a few years and go to college...and then maybe start thinking about marriage.

I do wonder if this is more about retaining returned missionaries (keeping them active by reasoning that once they have a temple marriage and maybe even some babies, they'll be more likely to stay active.).

Edited April 27, 2017 by JulieM

[MormonVideoGame]

30 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I attended a temple wedding, more than 50 years ago, of a relative, he a day over 19, she barely 18. Not only did they receive the blessing of their respective parents, but the church authorities as well. The marriage collapsed 10 years later. Nowadays, that couple would have received the advice to wait, "what's the hurry?".

The problem is that many couples, especially men, cannot wait because they have human needs. They don't want to disobey the law of Chastity, so they have no other choice but to  get married quickly, especially if they have a high libido. For some it is easy to wait, for others it is not easy at all. 

On 4/23/2017 at 4:05 PM, Gray said:

Yes to everything else you asked.

You told me the brain doesn't fully develop until the mid 20s. So why do you think it is okay for 18 year olds to  join the military and go to war? or have other dangerous jobs? why do you think it is okay for 16 year olds  to drive?  

Edited April 27, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

 

You told me the brain doesn't fully develop until the mid 20s. So why do you think it is okay for 18 year olds to  join the military and go to war? or have other dangerous jobs? why do you think it is okay for 16 year olds  to drive?  

I said the opposite. No, I don't think 18 year olds should be able to join the military. 

[thesometimesaint]

32 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Unfortunately many mission presidents are still stressing the importance of coming right home and getting married for returning missionaries.  Some of the young men are barely 20 years old now when they get home with no college yet and with little to no means to support themselves.  I don't get that this is still the advice they're getting.  

So many who follow this advice end up moving back in with parents because they can't support themselves (especially if they start having kids right off too).

My friend's son just returned home from his mission and is only 20 years old.  He's in a panic to find a girl and get married because this was almost pounded into him to do by his mission president. My friend is trying to reason with him to relax...wait a few years and go to college...and then maybe start thinking about marriage.

I do wonder if this is more about retaining returned missionaries (keeping them active by reasoning that once they have a temple marriage and maybe even some babies, they'll be more likely to stay active.).

I don't understand the rationalization for getting married right after a Mission. 24/25 seems to be a more advantageous age for Western countries, whether that involves college is a different discussion. As anyone who has hired a plumber recently knows.

That could be a factor, but doing that also multiplies the problems. Moving back home when your relatively young and single is a pain in the butt. Doing it with children is much more painful, and harder on a marriage.

[thesometimesaint]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

I said the opposite. No, I don't think 18 year olds should be able to join the military. 

After about 24 years old the military doesn't want a bunch of raw recruits.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I attended a temple wedding, more than 50 years ago, of a relative, he a day over 19, she barely 18. Not only did they receive the blessing of their respective parents, but the church authorities as well. The marriage collapsed 10 years later. Nowadays, that couple would have received the advice to wait, "what's the hurry?".

I have another relative that waited until they were in their late twenties. A much better situation for success, not a guarantee of course, but better than getting married in their teens.

50 years ago, iirc the data was showing younger marriages weren't that much worse or equal in staying power as older ones (I looked up this data when my son told me he wanted to get married, .I wanted to see if my concerns were founded in social science data and I was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't as bad as .I thought).  I don't think I could easily find that data and .I have a family party to go to and promised research for something else, so offering this as a possibility, not fact.

I think there is much better reason to wait these days as we don't train our kids as well to be prepared for marriage mentally or in skills and some experience of living outside of the family home without mom and dad paying your bills, making sure needs are met can be helpful,especially interacting in depth with people from different family dynamics.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

Unfortunately many mission presidents are still stressing the importance of coming right home and getting married for returning missionaries.  Some of the young men are barely 20 years old now when they get home with no college yet and with little to no means to support themselves.  I don't get that this is still the advice they're getting.  

Iirc, someone posted info saying Mission Presidents were being instructed not to do this (Mormonleaks perhaps).

Maybe someone with a better memory can recall the source.

[Calm]

Found it.  Page 20 of the 2015 MP training seminar, won't link due to board rules, but Elder Michael Ringwood states do not counsel to marry within a given time in the final interview.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

On Sunday, April 23, 2017 at 11:51 PM, Glenn101 said:

I am not dismissing such accounts, but look for signs of credibility.

I take it that you believe you have the "whole story." So what is your verdict of Joseph's mind and character???

Did Joseph do that? But again, we need to move this to another thread. Has nothing to do with the age of consent.

Why don't you start one. Summon up your best evidence against Joseph and his magical world view.

Algebraic topology can provide insight on how one gets from point A to point B. Applying this to Joseph Smith, I cannot know exactly how he got to B, what path he took precisely--noone can--but I can with confidence say that he crossed a plane to do so.

The calculation of a limit in Calculus is also applicable: one may not know the exact number but can with certainty say the limit where it is approaching. 

As the picture of the history fills out, there may be some areas to fill in, but there is also a concept called diminishing returns. After a while, the picture does not change significantly.

For Joseph's magical worldview and that of his contemporaries, have you read Michael Quinn's book? Magic is relevant to this thread, in that salvific power was attributed to a fourteen year old girl giving herself as plural wife to Joseph Smith.

Perhaps a thread on this will show up here eventually. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Meadowchik

[bcuzbcuz]

16 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

The problem is that many couples, especially men, cannot wait because they have human needs. They don't want to disobey the law of Chastity, so they have no other choice but to  get married quickly, especially if they have a high libido. For some it is easy to wait, for others it is not easy at all. 

You told me the brain doesn't fully develop until the mid 20s. So why do you think it is okay for 18 year olds to  join the military and go to war? or have other dangerous jobs? why do you think it is okay for 16 year olds  to drive?  

Since you quoted me I will respond to your above questions. I don't think 18 year olds should be allowed to join the military. In my country, 16 year olds cannot drive. They must wait until 18 and even so those between 18 and 25 are the highest risk group. (and their insurance reflects that) 

As far as men with high libidos struggling to keep their passions under control during their teen years, how does that change by just getting married? And besides I think it is a lousy excuse to get married. A recipe for disaster, in my opinion

 

[MormonVideoGame]

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Since you quoted me I will respond to your above questions. I don't think 18 year olds should be allowed to join the military. In my country, 16 year olds cannot drive. They must wait until 18 and even so those between 18 and 25 are the highest risk group. (and their insurance reflects that) 

What is the age of consent in your country?

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

it is a lousy excuse to get married. A recipe for disaster, in my opinion

Sex is a human need. Either they have sex before marriage or they get married young. It is very hard for many to wait. 

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

As far as men with high libidos struggling to keep their passions under control during their teen years, how does that change by just getting married?

why do men have sex with their wives? It does help. 

Edited April 28, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

What is the age of consent in your country?

Sex is a human need. Either they have sex before marriage or they get married young. It is very hard for many to wait. 

why do men have sex with their wives? It does help. 

Really? Then why do married men seek out the services of "women of the night"? Why did Joseph Smith find additional women to satisfy his libido while he was married to Emma?

I don't think that there is a "one size fits all" answer to libido. JS married women, and young girls, young teenage girls, young girls of 14 years of age, while he was married to Emma. Does that mean that his libido was satisfied through his marriage to Emma? It would appear not. 

I agree that sex is a human need. I don't agree that people in authourity can use their position to meet their needs. In fact, I think that people that use their authourity to "force" young victims to submit to sexual pressures are the scum of the earth. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Really? Then why do married men seek out the services of "women of the night"? Why did Joseph Smith find additional women to satisfy his libido while he was married to Emma?

I don't think that there is a "one size fits all" answer to libido. JS married women, and young girls, young teenage girls, young girls of 14 years of age, while he was married to Emma. Does that mean that his libido was satisfied through his marriage to Emma? It would appear not. 

I agree that sex is a human need. I don't agree that people in authourity can use their position to meet their needs. In fact, I think that people that use their authourity to "force" young victims to submit to sexual pressures are the scum of the earth. 

None of your supposition above is fact, though. I'm sure you acknowledge that, right? You can't say that his marriages were to satisfy his unfulfilled libido. 

I'm not denying that sex happened in some of his marriages (I personally believe that it did, and I have no problem with that. They considered themselves to be married). It appears likely that many of his marriages had no sexual component at all; that they were entered into for reasons other than sex. 

But I think you go way too far when you confidently insist that Joseph Smith married "additional women to satisfy his libido," or that it "appears not" that Emma satisfied his libido. That is arguing facts and details not in evidence. 

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

 Why did Joseph Smith find additional women to satisfy his libido while he was married to Emma?

JS married women, and young girls, young teenage girls, young girls of 14 years of age, while he was married to Emma. Does that mean that his libido was satisfied through his marriage to Emma? It would appear not. 

If that is what you think happened you need to revisit the history books.
I am not one who makes up excuses claiming Joseph never had relations with any of his plural wives.  (Although I truly doubt he was intimate with Helen or Nancy (the 2 who were 14), the others were 16 or older.)
But if you think plural marriage was about more sex you are grossly misinformed.

[mrmarklin]

I've not read all of this thread, but it seems clear that one thing that happened over 150 years ago is very well (not) understood by many that were not even there. None of us were there in the 1840s, none of us lived in those times when life expectancies were short, and it was understood by most people that when a young woman began her menses she was generally considered ready for marriage. This is still true in many cultures today.  There are still vestiges of this recognition such as the Quinceañera celebrations in the Latin communities. Yet, many on this forum insist in using their 21st century "enlightened " morals in judging those times.

None of us personally knew Joseph Smith. Yet very ulterior motives are being imputed to him. He lived in a small, close-knit community of generally God fearing people.  I find it very difficult to believe that these people that knew Smith personally would be unaware of any nefarious motives in his polygamy.  Yet people on this forum freely impute such motives.  As did Smith's enemies back in the day.  But his followers remained faithful and they were the very people who would have understood Smith the best.

The fact is, polygamy continued after Smith 's lifetime and was only discontinued when the US Supreme Court forced the issue.

I submit that there is nothing nefarious about it, but rather it was accepted by the growing church at the time.

In the Helen Mar Kimball case it seems very clear that this was a marriage desired by not only Smith, but her parents as well.  It seems clear it was likely never consummated.  After Smith's death Helen remarried at the ripe old age of 16! and went on to have many children by her second husband.  Both of whom apparently remained faithful in the church.

 

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I agree that sex is a human need. I don't agree that people in authourity can use their position to meet their needs. 

I wasn't talking about that

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Really? Then why do married men seek out the services of "women of the night"? Why did Joseph Smith find additional women to satisfy his libido while he was married to Emma?

I agree sexual desires won't go away with marriage, but sex is still a human need. So what is the solution? Protected sex before marriage?   

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

None of your supposition above is fact, though. I'm sure you acknowledge that, right? You can't say that his marriages were to satisfy his unfulfilled libido. 

I'm not denying that sex happened in some of his marriages (I personally believe that it did, and I have no problem with that. They considered themselves to be married). It appears likely that many of his marriages had no sexual component at all; that they were entered into for reasons other than sex. 

But I think you go way too far when you confidently insist that Joseph Smith married "additional women to satisfy his libido," or that it "appears not" that Emma satisfied his libido. That is arguing facts and details not in evidence. 

No, I agree. I am quite rude to assume that Emma did not need meet JS needs. I only judge JS by his actions. He married may women, some of teenage years. Who am I to judge his libido? 

JS seduced, married, sealed a number of women. Apprently some of these women he put under the threat, that God himself was watching over their actions. If I was a believer, and under God's threat. I do believe I would have submitted. wouldn't you?

Between the choice of submitting to God¨s will, or choosing a logical alternative, I do thinkI would have chosen to submit. What would you have done?

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

It seems clear it was likely never consummated. 

What evidence do you have that supports that "it seems clear" that Joseph and Helen's marriage was "never consummated"?  

I believe there's not enough evidence to support that it was or it wasn't consummated.  We simply do not know.

Edited April 29, 2017 by JulieM

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

What evidence do you have that supports that "it seems clear" that Joseph and Helen's marriage was "never consummated"?  

I believe there's not enough evidence to support that it was or it wasn't consummated.  We simply do not know.

We don't know for sure. But the girl stayed at home after the sealing. I refer you to the Wikipedia article. 

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, JulieM said:

What evidence do you have that supports that "it seems clear" that Joseph and Helen's marriage was "never consummated"?  

I believe there's not enough evidence to support that it was or it wasn't consummated.  We simply do not know.

 

8 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

We don't know for sure. But the girl stayed at home after the sealing. I refer you to the Wikipedia article. 

I agree with JulieM that we can never know for sure.
But I also agree that Helen's marriage ran from May 1843 till June 1844, she lived with her parents and Joseph had 30ish other wives and we have journal entries giving us his location almost every day for that final year.
I think it is highly unlikely that their marriage was consummated given her age, living situation, and the verbiage used identifying the dynastic nature of that particular marriage at the time of the sealing.  I think it likely would have been in the future had Joseph lived.

I believe some of Josephs marriages were sexual, some were not. 
I am not convinced that Hales "eternity only" (or Meg Stout's "covenant companions" or any of the other term) have been shown to accurately describe a different ordinance than a marriage sealing as we know it today.  We know there were sealings for time and eternity, and sealings for time only if a previous t&e sealing had occurred. 
Sealings for eternity only may have happened but using them to downplay Joseph's marriages with his wives is nothing but creativity designed to make people feel better.