Age of Consent

[omni]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/02/14/us-new-york-children-young-14-can-marry

Within Church doctrine, there is no direct link between the legality of a relationship to the morality of the relationship.

Does the legality of fornication, extramarital affairs, and gay marriage make them moral in the eyes of the Church? 

[Ginger Snaps]

.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Ginger Snaps

[cinepro]

6 minutes ago, omni said:

Within Church doctrine, there is no direct link between the legality of a relationship to the morality of the relationship.

 

The Church has no problem appealing to the illegality of something in the argument for its immorality. 

For example, other than it being traditionally illegal, can you cite any doctrinal issue marijuana can't be used?

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Just so we're all clear, this special provision of "if your wife doesn't give you permission to take another wife you can do it without telling her" only applies to the man "who holds the keys of this power" (v.64), which in this case is Joseph Smith.

So our currently published and canonized scriptures still say the if President Monson wanted to take another wife, and his first wife (were she still living) said "No", he could still do it behind her back.

Truly the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

Correct.

[omni]

3 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The Church has no problem appealing to the illegality of something in the argument for its immorality. 

For example, other than it being traditionally illegal, can you cite any doctrinal issue marijuana can't be used?

And therein lies the inconsistency.

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, fair enough.  This is true.
But as a result of those eternal laws of morality God is the one who reveals what is moral.  Society doesn't get to determine morality.
And for the sake of this thread, a 14 year old marrying a 38 year old has only been considered immoral in society for about 150 years.  And God has said nothing on the matter that I've ever read.

To the contrary, aren't you arguing that God has said something on the matter and what he said was "Yes, do it! And if she does it will be to the benefit of her eternal salvation"?

This article illustrates the different types of moral reasoning that people develop starting as young children.  You're arguing that the problems with Joseph Smith and HMK are based on "social conventions", but for many people, they strike as very difficult moral issues.

Society Doesn't Create Morality and Neither Do Individuals

Quote

In justifying moral behavior, the criteria refer to the benefit or harm or the fairness or unfairness that the action would cause. For conventional issues, they turn to the norms and expectations of authority. What emerges from the work of cognitive psychologists is that, at young ages, children know the difference between social convention and morality, and they know it without being taught. You might say that they understand very well the point made by Socrates in his conversation with Euthyphro: Social conventions don't make for morality. It is morality that judges social conventions.

Religious commandments, social conventions, and codes of conduct can assist you in making moral decisions, but they are no substitute for ethical judgments. They do not pre-empt the need to make ethical decisions that have no obvious answers or present conflicts in ethical values. Codes, laws and ethical regulations can only suggest a course of action, not mandate a good, moral, and just one.

And here's why you'll never, ever win this argument:

Morality at this level isn't something that can be taught to us in Church (or in this case, taught out of us in Church).

For some people, this situation doesn't strike at their morality, so they're able to reconcile it.  But if someone hears about this situation and it strikes them as "immoral", it's nearly impossible to talk them out of it.

And step back and look at the absurdity of it all.  One of the foundational claims of the Church is that we members have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion to help us "feel" whether something is right or wrong (i.e. moral or immoral).  And then you have members who hear this story and feel very strongly and deeply that what Joseph did was immoral, and now the defenders have to convince them to ignore their feelings and look at what the culture of the times accepted in totally different circumstances.  At some point, don't the defenders on this ever ask themselves "What am I doing?"

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

cinepro:

While not common it was perfectly legal for a much older man to marry a young woman. Polygamy is a Red Herring.

Oh you bet.  Men in 1842 were all marrying dozens of women and then adding to that children.  And promising exaltation to the entire family if the poor girl would consent.  Happened all the time. 

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Morality is whatever God says is right.

If there is a God that practices this such a God is immoral. Such a belief is immoral as well.

But  I will give this to you if and when this God appears to the entire world to declare such capricious things as those who claim God is telling them what to do and telling us we should believe God is telling them such things.

Tell then not so much.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Correct.

And that is immoral.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

To the contrary, aren't you arguing that God has said something on the matter and what he said was "Yes, do it! And if she does it will be to the benefit of her eternal salvation"?

This article illustrates the different types of moral reasoning that people develop starting as young children.  You're arguing that the problems with Joseph Smith and HMK are based on "social conventions", but for many people, they strike as very difficult moral issues.

Society Doesn't Create Morality and Neither Do Individuals

And here's why you'll never, ever win this argument:

Morality at this level isn't something that can be taught to us in Church (or in this case, taught out of us in Church).

For some people, this situation doesn't strike at their morality, so they're able to reconcile it.  But if someone hears about this situation and it strikes them as "immoral", it's nearly impossible to talk them out of it.

And step back and look at the absurdity of it all.  One of the foundational claims of the Church is that we members have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion to help us "feel" whether something is right or wrong (i.e. moral or immoral).  And then you have members who hear this story and feel very strongly and deeply that what Joseph did was immoral, and now the defenders have to convince them to ignore their feelings and look at what the culture of the times accepted in totally different circumstances.  At some point, don't the defenders on this ever ask themselves "What am I doing?"

Polygamy has always been a problem to many members, even 150 years ago.  Why did Joseph keep polygamy a secret and even declared the practice wrong when he had already married multiple women?  Why was it necessary for Joseph to marry a 14 year old kid?  Did he need to for his own salvation?  Can a person and her family automatically receive salvation if they marry the right person as Joseph Smith promised?  How does that work?  Maybe we should all simply be sealed to Joseph Smith.  Magically we will all receive salvation.  Or does this only apply to 14 year old girls that really don't want to marry a 38 year old man who is already married?  

I don't really have that big of problem with polygamy.  But really? To practice it you have to find a 14 year old and tell her she and her whole family will receive salvation if she does this?  And Joseph Smith is not the only one choosing to marrying teenagers.  Lorenzo Snow married a 15 year old when he was 50.  No abuse of power there, right?

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If there is a God that practices this such a God is immoral. Such a belief is immoral as well.

Then the source of morality and the very words moral/immoral become meaningless.
If God is not the source that defines morality, morality is nothing more that what any society thinks is good at any particular time.
Without God there is no absolute right and wrong.

Edited April 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Morality is whatever God says is right.

And the man who married the 14 year old said that God said that it was all right.  

I know we are on different ends of spectrum here.  But can you see how some people find this very disturbing?

[Five Solas]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

...

But doctrinally Joseph did not need Emma's permission once she rejected the law.

If she says "no" - then the answer is "yes."  That I instinctively recoil--that just serves to demonstrate my unworthiness, to the worthy.  I don't suppose there's any other way to see it, is there?

;0)

--Erik

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

The Church has no problem appealing to the illegality of something in the argument for its immorality. 

For example, other than it being traditionally illegal, can you cite any doctrinal issue marijuana can't be used?

Mind-altering substances are generally prohibited recreationally though permissible for medical use if recommended and prescribed by competent medical professionals.

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, the scriptures are silent on adults having relationships with underage kids, although the Spirit speaks plainly that this is sinful. 

Does the scripture even define what an underage kid would be?

[Glenn101]

24 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

And the man who married the 14 year old said that God said that it was all right.  

I know we are on different ends of spectrum here.  But can you see how some people find this very disturbing?

Actually I can. But not about the fourteen year old part. As has been pointed out, marrying at fourteen was not the normal thing during that period of time, but it was not unheard of nor was it illegal. So, being disturbed about that aspect is really presentism. One of my aunts got married when she was fourteen to a much older man, and it was noted as being unusual by our families.

It is really the polygamy issue itself and the early secrecy that has bothers many people. But it was affirmed by succeeding prophets until the practice was finally ended by revelation.

A person with a firm testimony of the restoration of the gospel may be bothered by some of the things he or she hears and reads but that testimony will also lead them to either inquire of the Lord, or to understand that God knows what went on and He will be the judge, since He is the only one who has all of the facts. I am in that camp.

I have never been bothered by the polygamy itself. It was practiced by many of the ancient prophets with it becoming a commandment at least in some cases. Thus I have never prayed to obtain a testimony of it because I have never been commanded to practice it. I guess that is a bit in error because I do have a testimony of Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the rest of it.) And I am inclined to take Joseph Smith at his word that his embrace of the doctrine was reluctant and only after being threatened by and angel with a drawn sword.

That reluctance seems to have been pretty general among just about all of those to whom the principle was introduced. Some, like Lucy Walker, Vilate Kimball, Helen Mar Kimball, and Brigham Young received their testimonies that plural marriage is an eternal, celestial principal. There are some who feel that Helen Mar's acquiescence was because of pressure, i.e. the ensuring the future exaltation thing, but her actual conversion came some time later. Vilate Kimball's conversion came, according to Helen Mar, before the principal was broached to her by man. She received a vision of celestial marriage in answer to her prayers about what was troubling her husband so mightily.

Again, there are those who say that such spiritual manifestations are unreliable, pointing out that members of apostate sects such as the FLDS report having such experiences. However, the verity of those experiences by those members who accepted plural marriage is something that we cannot affirm or deny. We were not there when they occurred. It is something that is between them and the Lord.

If a person who is a member does not believe that part, that is between them and the Lord. I cannot judge them either. I can only go by my own spiritual experiences which have led me to a firm belief/faith in God, in Jesus the Christ, in the plan of salvation/exaltation, in the restoration, in Joseph Smith as a prophet, in Brigham Young as a prophet, and in our present prophet.

Glenn

[Meadowchik]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Ok, fair enough.  This is true.
But as a result of those eternal laws of morality God is the one who reveals what is moral.  Society doesn't get to determine morality.
And for the sake of this thread, a 14 year old marrying a 38 year old has only been considered immoral in society for about 150 years.  And God has said nothing on the matter that I've ever read.

D&C 121 delineates the role of priesthood power. Telling a woman that the prophet must marry her or he'll be destroyed is clearly a violation of priesthood power and authority. Even if spoken in persuasive tones, it is abusive.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually I can. But not about the fourteen year old part. As has been pointed out, marrying at fourteen was not the normal thing during that period of time, but it was not unheard of nor was it illegal. So, being disturbed about that aspect is really presentism. One of my aunts got married when she was fourteen to a much older man, and it was noted as being unusual by our families.

It is really the polygamy issue itself and the early secrecy that has bothers many people. But it was affirmed by succeeding prophets until the practice was finally ended by revelation.

A person with a firm testimony of the restoration of the gospel may be bothered by some of the things he or she hears and reads but that testimony will also lead them to either inquire of the Lord, or to understand that God knows what went on and He will be the judge, since He is the only one who has all of the facts. I am in that camp.

I have never been bothered by the polygamy itself. It was practiced by many of the ancient prophets with it becoming a commandment at least in some cases. Thus I have never prayed to obtain a testimony of it because I have never been commanded to practice it. I guess that is a bit in error because I do have a testimony of Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants as well as the rest of it.) And I am inclined to take Joseph Smith at his word that his embrace of the doctrine was reluctant and only after being threatened by and angel with a drawn sword.

That reluctance seems to have been pretty general among just about all of those to whom the principle was introduced. Some, like Lucy Walker, Vilate Kimball, Helen Mar Kimball, and Brigham Young received their testimonies that plural marriage is an eternal, celestial principal. There are some who feel that Helen Mar's acquiescence was because of pressure, i.e. the ensuring the future exaltation thing, but her actual conversion came some time later. Vilate Kimball's conversion came, according to Helen Mar, before the principal was broached to her by man. She received a vision of celestial marriage in answer to her prayers about what was troubling her husband so mightily.

Again, there are those who say that such spiritual manifestations are unreliable, pointing out that members of apostate sects such as the FLDS report having such experiences. However, the verity of those experiences by those members who accepted plural marriage is something that we cannot affirm or deny. We were not there when they occurred. It is something that is between them and the Lord.

If a person who is a member does not believe that part, that is between them and the Lord. I cannot judge them either. I can only go by my own spiritual experiences which have led me to a firm belief/faith in God, in Jesus the Christ, in the plan of salvation/exaltation, in the restoration, in Joseph Smith as a prophet, in Brigham Young as a prophet, and in our present prophet.

Glenn

How can Joseph be believed if he did not obey the rules governing polygamy in D&C 132, breakung them outright on multiple occasions?

[Meadowchik]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

To the contrary, aren't you arguing that God has said something on the matter and what he said was "Yes, do it! And if she does it will be to the benefit of her eternal salvation"?

This article illustrates the different types of moral reasoning that people develop starting as young children.  You're arguing that the problems with Joseph Smith and HMK are based on "social conventions", but for many people, they strike as very difficult moral issues.

Society Doesn't Create Morality and Neither Do Individuals

And here's why you'll never, ever win this argument:

Morality at this level isn't something that can be taught to us in Church (or in this case, taught out of us in Church).

For some people, this situation doesn't strike at their morality, so they're able to reconcile it.  But if someone hears about this situation and it strikes them as "immoral", it's nearly impossible to talk them out of it.

And step back and look at the absurdity of it all.  One of the foundational claims of the Church is that we members have the Holy Ghost as a constant companion to help us "feel" whether something is right or wrong (i.e. moral or immoral).  And then you have members who hear this story and feel very strongly and deeply that what Joseph did was immoral, and now the defenders have to convince them to ignore their feelings and look at what the culture of the times accepted in totally different circumstances.  At some point, don't the defenders on this ever ask themselves "What am I doing?"

Don't marry me because you want to be my wife, because I know you don't . Don't marry me because I want to be your husband, because God knows I don't. Dont marry me because I will keep you safe and protected, because we know you already have the protection of your parents. Marry me because, as the prophet of God, I say that God decrees it. Obviously, there is nothing in it for me, so I cannot be mistaken.

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

Legal is not the same as moral. 

 

Your Presentism is showing.

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Still, you haven't addressed that Joseph was married to other women at the same time. And Helen didn't fall in love with Joseph, he wasn't her beau like the scenario of two people getting married young because they're in love.

Because that is a Red Herring. We discussing age of consent not polygamy.

[thesometimesaint]

10 hours ago, cinepro said:

Just so we're all clear, this special provision of "if your wife doesn't give you permission to take another wife you can do it without telling her" only applies to the man "who holds the keys of this power" (v.64), which in this case is Joseph Smith.

So our currently published and canonized scriptures still say the if President Monson wanted to take another wife, and his first wife (were she still living) said "No", he could still do it behind her back.

Truly the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

I guess he could but excommunication is considered a deterrent

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I already provided this.

• D&C 132:65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

According to D&C 132:65 if the wife rejects the law of Plural Marriage the husband is no longer required to seek her permission.

Yeah, I already understood from your very first post that you found D&C 132 as the scripture reference to polygamy. But that's all you've got? Nothing else?

What about the references in the Book of Mormon that clearly say that polygamy is not permitted. Do I need to list them here for you? 

But didn't 132 come many years after Joseph had already started engaging in polygamous relationships? You know the answer to that is yes. You don't find the "If she doesn't agree, then you (JS) are exempt" as rather "convenient"?

But the CFR still stands. Provide scriptures that support modern polygamy. And you are well aware that 132 was even officially denied by JS after its implementation.

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, longview said:

 

And your point IS?

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, omni said:

Within Church doctrine, there is no direct link between the legality of a relationship to the morality of the relationship.

Does the legality of fornication, extramarital affairs, and gay marriage make them moral in the eyes of the Church? 

No, but those are still a Red Herring. Please stay on topic.