Age of Consent

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Just what kind of evidence is there of anyone having sex with another person unless there are witnesses (yuch) or a resulting pregnancy. I don't know about you, but my marriages vows did not include that I had to provide evidence that my wife and I had "consummated" our marriage.

The difference with polygamy is that many marriages appear to have been done for reasons other than normal marriage. It's also possible that they were married but waited to consummate the marriage until they are older. This is actually a fairly common practice in the world.

Don't get me wrong. I think limiting marriage to 18 at the youngest is wise policy. But a lot of that relies on things we've learned the past 150 years I think. Further it's somewhat illegitimate to project that knowledge backwards in time. While young marriages weren't common in the 19th century, they also were seen as well within social norms. 14, it should be noted, was unusually young for marriage. That said the age of consent in the 19th century US was 10 years old which gives a conception of how society viewed young marriage.  My (non-member) great grandparents were married in Sweden when she was 15 and he was in his late 20's. They loved each other a great deal and had a very good marriage. So I think we just have to be careful here even though from a utilitarian judgment it's better that those things don't happen. 

But realize that our culture today has a fairly long adolescence. Really we often don't consider people emotionally and socially adults until well into their 20's. However at the time of Joseph Smith going to war at 14 or even 13 wasn't at all uncommon. Yes in the Civil War the law said 18, but this was widely not followed -- even as late as WWII it was very common for soldiers to be under 18. In the revolutionary war 16 was the legal age and again many were younger - some as young as 11.  Starting ones own farm at 14 or 15 wasn't uncommon and leaving home to get a job at 13 or 14 was common. Everyone worked liked adults when they were teenagers. So it's a very different culture from what we experience. Again, I think ours is better, but we are very wealthy which enables us to keep our teens from needing to work like adults. 

To Hellen Mar Kimball, while I think we can all say the practice is disturbing, the question is whether it would have been seen as inappropriate at the time. Especially if not consummated. (There's no clear evidence on that). She continued living with her family.

My own personal view is that it likely wasn't consumated. I tend to see the practice of polygamy as done poorly to say the least. If it needed to be revealed I think they should have put age restrictions to avoid men seeking after women much younger than their existing wives. I also think they should have put a limit on how many marriages one could have. So I think there are things to fault Joseph for here. But the age part seems just designed for emotional appeal given the norms of the time. Especially if the marriage wasn't consumated.

Edited April 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 To Hellen Mar Kimball, while I think we can all say the practice is disturbing, the question is whether it would have been seen as inappropriate at the time. 

Oh course it was.  Otherwise why the secrecy?  Why wasn't it done out in the open and Helen presented as one of his new plural wives?  (And, it being "at that time" didn't make it any more appropriate than if it was done today under the same circumstances, IMO).  

The same reasons apply for why President Monson wouldn't announce or go public with doing today what Joseph was doing back "at that time".

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Not so.  Societies can develop morals and ethics that work for the good of society.  Godless societies did it for a long time though they may have a attributed some of it to some sort of deity that you would reject.  Some things in human societies seem to always be considered wrong or right.

But really al you have for God's morality is in books written by humans that you believe were somehow communicating with God.  Other humans reject those books and may have their own books they believe are written by some God or from some other divine source.

And again, to argue whatever God says is moral is immoral.  This was Joseph's Smith's argument.  But Joseph wanted everyone to trust that he was getting God's message of what was wrong one day was right the next.  That's pretty convenient and puts an awful lot of power in one person's hand. 

 

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Funny how people miss this part:
27 -  my brethren / there shall not any man among you
29 -  this people

I get likening the scriptures and all, but the banning commandment in verse 27 was given specifically to the people of Jacob.
Last I checked most of us are neither Nephite nor Lamanite.
Verse 30 could be seen to have wider reaching connotation ("my people") but that depends on how you read it I suppose.
 

Also, Jacob's people weren't practicing polygamy to comply with God's commandments, or to draw closer to him.  Jacob makes it pretty clear that they were doing it to satiate their lust.  People will say this of Joseph, but I don't think he falls into that category.

I listen to a podcast that is kind of a guilty pleasure.  They discuss all sorts of weird stuff from aliens to ghosts to murderous cults.  And although it is meant to entertain, they do their research pretty thoroughly.  They recently did a number of episodes on Scientology, Charles Manson, Children of God, and Fellowship of Friends.

What struck me as I was listening to their discussion of the leadership within these cults, is how diametrically opposite they were to Joseph Smith.  The leadership were always sexual deviants, to the point that their perversions were widely known within their followers.  And when I say perversions, I mean...perversions.  I think if Joseph was guilty of something of the like, it would've been impossible to keep it secret and someone would've written about it.  

The apostasy of members is another difference.  Joseph never made it a mission to destroy people who left the church.  If he was a sexual predator using his status to prey on followers, he would've been obsessed over those who decided to leave in an attempt to control information and what was said.

And finally, cults and groups that start introducing sexual practices that deviate from the "norm" quickly degenerate into pooling all their resources of time, money, and talent into said sexual practices.  Joseph built Nauvoo.  And his revelations only got more impressive instead of more sexual.

My point is, IF Joseph had been doing this to take advantage and to satiate his lust, eventually he would've slipped up and his sexual perversion would've been put on display.  I instead see a man very much in control of himself, and focused on building the church, and seeing it prosper.  Almost impossible if he had been a sexual deviant.  

 

[omni]

7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

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

To be fair, it may be a little difficult to stay on topic when it's not entirely clear what that topic is.  

The OP linked to an article not directly related to the Church without any context or commentary (which I believe may be in violation of board rules ;)).

[SteveO]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh course it was.  Otherwise why the secrecy?  Why wasn't it done out in the open and Helen presented as one of his new plural wives?  (And, it being "at that time" didn't make it any more appropriate than if it was done today under the same circumstances, IMO).  

The same reasons apply for why President Monson wouldn't announce or go public with doing today what Joseph was doing back "at that time".

I once had a discussion with my wife about polygamy.  I don't know how we got on the topic, but I made a very *poor* joke along the lines of, "if I was asked to live polygamy, we'd need a WAY bigger house".

That single line, and my wife wouldn't talk to me the rest of the night and into the following morning.  If President Monson asked me to live polygamy, you bet I'd be absolutely terrified to tell my wife.

The patriarchs had the same issues.  Sarah and Hagar, and Leah and Rachel.  Polygamy has never been easily accepted.  Jealousy is almost always a sure thing, and it's pretty ugly at times.

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh course it was.  Otherwise why the secrecy?  Why wasn't it done out in the open and Helen presented as one of his new plural wives?  (And, it being "at that time" didn't make it any more appropriate than if it was done today under the same circumstances, IMO).  

The same reasons apply for why President Monson wouldn't announce or go public with doing today what Joseph was doing back "at that time".

All the polygamous marriages were done in secret due to the persecution they were facing at the time.

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All the polygamous marriages were done in secret due to the persecution they were facing at the time.

But if it was acceptable behavior for "at that time" and completely appropriate, why would they worry about being persecuted for doing it?

And why did Joseph hide Fanny and others from Emma?

What Joseph was doing, was no more accepted or appropriate back then than it is today.  

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[bcuzbcuz]

16 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Also, Jacob's people weren't practicing polygamy to comply with God's commandments, or to draw closer to him.  Jacob makes it pretty clear that they were doing it to satiate their lust.  People will say this of Joseph, but I don't think he falls into that category.

I listen to a podcast that is kind of a guilty pleasure.  They discuss all sorts of weird stuff from aliens to ghosts to murderous cults.  And although it is meant to entertain, they do their research pretty thoroughly.  They recently did a number of episodes on Scientology, Charles Manson, Children of God, and Fellowship of Friends.

What struck me as I was listening to their discussion of the leadership within these cults, is how diametrically opposite they were to Joseph Smith.  The leadership were always sexual deviants, to the point that their perversions were widely known within their followers.  And when I say perversions, I mean...perversions.  I think if Joseph was guilty of something of the like, it would've been impossible to keep it secret and someone would've written about it.  

The apostasy of members is another difference.  Joseph never made it a mission to destroy people who left the church.  If he was a sexual predator using his status to prey on followers, he would've been obsessed over those who decided to leave in an attempt to control information and what was said.

And finally, cults and groups that start introducing sexual practices that deviate from the "norm" quickly degenerate into pooling all their resources of time, money, and talent into said sexual practices.  Joseph built Nauvoo.  And his revelations only got more impressive instead of more sexual.

My point is, IF Joseph had been doing this to take advantage and to satiate his lust, eventually he would've slipped up and his sexual perversion would've been put on display.  I instead see a man very much in control of himself, and focused on building the church, and seeing it prosper.  Almost impossible if he had been a sexual deviant.  

 

Whaaaa? 

 "IF Joseph had been doing this to take advantage and to satiate his lust, eventually he would've slipped up and his sexual perversion would've been put on display.  I instead see a man very much in control of himself, and focused on building the church, and seeing it prosper.  Almost impossible if he had been a sexual deviant."

SO, Joseph was never exposed, therefore he cannot have been a "sexual deviant" (your words). This sort of implies that bad men get caught for doing bad things.  Uh........No!

Joseph was good (for the most part) at keeping his polygamy secret. That doesn't mean that he was telling the truth when he claimed that he only had one wife. It only means that he was good at keeping his accumulation of wives, both teenage, and already married women, secret. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Haha!  If Helen was just to be sealed to Joseph, why would it need to be called marriage? If it was just a beautiful spiritual ordinance, nothing consummated, why would her mother call it a "thorny" and difficult path?

Asserting that Joseph Smith never really consummated these marriages is like saying Jesus drank grape juice.  Christ couldn't possibly be drinking real wine.  Mormons trying to make sense out of conflicting beliefs.  It is that Spirit whispering to them that something is not quite right about this kind of behavior.  Or that Christ couldn't possibly have been ok with wine.

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, SteveO said:

I once had a discussion with my wife about polygamy.  I don't know how we got on the topic, but I made a very *poor* joke along the lines of, "if I was asked to live polygamy, we'd need a WAY bigger house".

That single line, and my wife wouldn't talk to me the rest of the night and into the following morning.  If President Monson asked me to live polygamy, you bet I'd be absolutely terrified to tell my wife.

The patriarchs had the same issues.  Sarah and Hagar, and Leah and Rachel.  Polygamy has never been easily accepted.  Jealousy is almost always a sure thing, and it's pretty ugly at times.

There is no commandment from God to live polygamy in the Bible. The one and only time that some might think he did was with Levirate marriage and commanding to marry the dead brother's wife, but where does it say that the man is married when he marries his sister-in-law. No evidence that I've seen.

[SteveO]

18 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Whaaaa? 

 "IF Joseph had been doing this to take advantage and to satiate his lust, eventually he would've slipped up and his sexual perversion would've been put on display.  I instead see a man very much in control of himself, and focused on building the church, and seeing it prosper.  Almost impossible if he had been a sexual deviant."

SO, Joseph was never exposed, therefore he cannot have been a "sexual deviant" (your words). This sort of implies that bad men get caught for doing bad things.  Uh........No!

Joseph was good (for the most part) at keeping his polygamy secret. That doesn't mean that he was telling the truth when he claimed that he only had one wife. It only means that he was good at keeping his accumulation of wives, both teenage, and already married women, secret. 

Being a leader of a church with thousands of members is a very public position.  Trying to satiate lust would eventually spin out of control.  It's human nature.  It would've creeped into his revelations, it would've turned into an obsession.  

Thats really the question for me anyways. Was Jospeh doing this because God commanded him, or did he do it to take advantage of his position?  If the latter, it almost surely would've been evident.  Instead, the only evidence is a 14 year old spiritual wife who continued to live with her family.  And whose marriage is doubtful to have been consummated.

Also, although he kept his marriages a secret, we still know about them all don't we?  There's just no evidence to suggest Jospeh was marrying these women to satiate his own sexual interests. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by SteveO

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Being a leader of a church with thousands of members is a very public position.  Trying to satiate lust would eventually spin out of control.  It's human nature.  It would've creeped into his revelations, it would've turned into an obsession.  

Thats really the question for me anyways. Was Jospeh doing this because God commanded him, or did he do it to take advantage of his position?  If the latter, it almost surely would've been evident.  Instead, the only evidence is a 14 year old spiritual wife who continued to live with her family.  And whose marriage is doubtful to have been consummated.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. Joseph did claim revelations on this.  And it did "spin out of control" when his lies started to be revealed. He was killed trying to keep it a secret (after destroying the Expositor).

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

There is no commandment from God to live polygamy in the Bible. The one and only time that some might think he did was with Levirate marriage and commanding to marry the dead brother's wife, but where does it say that the man is married when he marries his sister-in-law. No evidence that I've seen.

Polygamy was part of most Jewish culture even if not that uncommon. When polygamy went out of fashion in the talmudic era Levirate marriage was largely done away with as well. It did make a comeback in the 12th century in Spain although not in northern Europe. One thus has to ask what period one is talking of. Often there's seen a conflict between Lev 17:16 and Deut 25:56. However it's not clear which was the general case and when the conflict arose. (Most scholars think much of these texts are fairly late.

Something to keep in mind is that among subsistence peoples widows usually had an extremely hard life and often short one. So seeing the practice through the modern lens where no one is near starvation and there's no shortage of wealth even for the poor can be quite misleading. In the ancient world one was often not far from death.

 

[SteveO]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

You're contradicting yourself all over the place!  Joseph did claim revelations on this.  And it did "spin out of control" when his lies were revealed.  He was killed trying to keep it a secret (after destroying the Expositor).

Is there any resemblance of the early Mormon church to any religious groups since that have practiced polygamy?  My point is that although Joseph introduced polygamy, there is no evidence that it was a heirarchy of men preying on women to satiate their lust.  It would've degenerated into that, and it didn't.  It's actually remarkable that it didn't degenerate into that.

Edited April 18, 2017 by SteveO

[clarkgoble]

37 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But if it was acceptable behavior for "at that time" and completely appropriate, why would they worry about being persecuted for doing it?

And why did Joseph hide Fanny and others from Emma?

What Joseph was doing, was no more accepted or appropriate back then than it is today.  

Polygamy wasn't normal behavior at the time and was very unacceptable socially. You can see that when the Republican party forms to eradicate the twin evils of slavery and polygamy. So no one is arguing polygamy was socially normative. Quite the opposite. Again there are good reasons for that although that has no bearing on whether God commanded Joseph in the practice. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Did you read the full article? I'm sure you had to have. It isn't a glowing report of how well marriage can be for a 14 year old girl. It's quite the opposite!

In 21st Century America it usually not a good thing. Early 19th Century America was a different place.

[JulieM]

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Is there any resemblance of the early Mormon church to any religious groups since that have practiced polygamy?  My point is that although Joseph introduced polygamy, there is no evidence that it was a heirarchy of men preying on women to satiate their lust.  It would've degenerated into that, and it didn't.  

Have you studied what took place in Nauvoo with John C. Bennett and others?  Those were men who Joseph was inspired to trust.  I think it definitely "degenerated".

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Polygamy was part of most Jewish culture even if not that uncommon. When polygamy went out of fashion in the talmudic era Levirate marriage was largely done away with as well. It did make a comeback in the 12th century in Spain although not in northern Europe. One thus has to ask what period one is talking of. Often there's seen a conflict between Lev 17:16 and Deut 25:56. However it's not clear which was the general case and when the conflict arose. (Most scholars think much of these texts are fairly late.

Something to keep in mind is that among subsistence peoples widows usually had an extremely hard life and often short one. So seeing the practice through the modern lens where no one is near starvation and there's no shortage of wealth even for the poor can be quite misleading. In the ancient world one was often not far from death.

 

Take care of the women without marrying them all, let them choose who they want to marry. But still help them until they marry, help them as a community. There are ways around polygamy.

[SteveO]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Have you studied what took place in Nauvoo with John C. Bennett and others?  Those were men who Joseph was inspired to trust.  I think it definitely "degenerated".

Oh I have.  John C Bennett who abandoned his wife and children shortly after baptism and committed adultry shortly after?  The brothel he ran and the saints pushed into the ravine?  He also had nothing to do with any theological developmnt in Nauvoo, including polygamy.  

But we're talking about Joseph here.  And you sort of proved my point.  Eventually a man whose only focus is sexual deviency is going to be exposed.  It's going to boil over into public life.  Its going to be made manifest in sexually explicit "revelations" or religious commentary--a notable feature from leadership of polygamous and/or sexually motivated cults/religious groups.  Sexual desire when not put in check burns out of control.  There is no historical evidence that this happened with Joseph.  No writings saying, "Jospeh makes women uncomfortable" or "Joseph is making me uncomfortable how he talks about women that pass him on the street".  There's no writings from his family, especially his children, on the subject--another feature from cults obsessed with sex.  There's nothing.  And if Joseph was abusing his status for carnal desires, we would see something, somewhere, from somebody.  The fact that none exist is rather remarkable, and suggests Joseph practiced polygamy as best he knew how, with what was revealed to him.

  

Edited April 18, 2017 by SteveO

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

Also, we have no evidence or record that shows that any of Joseph's marriages were "eternity only sealings".  That came from Brian Hales when he helped write the essay.

Those existed at one time, but we don't know that any of Joseph's sealings were for eternity only.

We can be pretty sure that the ones that occurred after his death (with BY standing as proxy) were "eternity only."

Edited April 18, 2017 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, omni said:

To be fair, it may be a little difficult to stay on topic when it's not entirely clear what that topic is.  

The OP linked to an article not directly related to the Church without any context or commentary (which I believe may be in violation of board rules ;)).

The topic is the age of HMK.

[JulieM]

40 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Oh I have.  John C Bennett who abandoned his wife and children shortly after baptism and committed adultry shortly after?  The brothel he ran and the saints pushed into the ravine?  He also had nothing to do with any theological developmnt in Nauvoo, including polygamy.  

You don't know that.

Bennett lived with Joseph for 8 or more months and they were close ("inseparable" is the word used).

Joseph called him to be assistant to the president of the church soon after he came to Nauvoo.  He was elected mayor of Nauvoo, was made the Chancellor of the University of City of Nauvoo, and Master in Chancery for Hancock Court.  I think Joseph trusted him.  He also organized the first Masonic Lodge in Nauvoo.

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

We can be pretty sure that the ones that occurred after his death (with BY standing as proxy) were "eternity only."

The fact that people were being sealed to Joseph after his death is pretty good evidence that polygamy was not all about sex. 

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, SteveO said:

But we're talking about Joseph here.

No, you stated "men preying on women" in Nauvoo.

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM