Age of Consent

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, SteveO said:

For me, I don't struggle with polygamy so much in and of itself.  As I've mentioned, I'm just not seeing too much sexual motivation behind it.  It does bother me that such an important principle seemed to be so disorganized with little to no divine guidance as to how it needed to be administered. 

I don't have a problem with people being troubled (or even reasoning that it means there was no actual guidance/revelation if they have received no personal revelation).  I believe God leaves our leaders and thus us with sparse general direction/instruction in many areas so that we will seek him out individually.  If our leaders are obviously receiving tons of precise, good guidance, there will seem little reason to depend on ourselves when we know how poor a job we make of it...but it is essential we came to know God ourselves.  I think the primary message our leaders are to give to us is to open our minds to seek the face of God...and this message is delivered in a variety of ways and on various levels.

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Exactly and for good reason.  But much damage had been already done by then because Joseph initially put a great deal of trust in him.  He was definitely a scoundrel.

I don't think anyone would argue with that....

[SteveO]

I have to go be productive now, but Juliann and Calm, you sisters are rock solid.  Thank you for your responses!

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, it's not.
No more than Christ telling us we must accept him as our Lord or be destroyed.  Or President Monson telling us we must keep the commandments or be destroyed.  Or God telling the children of Israel to obey him or be destroyed.

Warning people of the consequence of a choice is not abuse of power.
Scripture and prophetic discourse is absolutely FULL of warnings to do something or be destroyed/sent to hell.  So the difference was in the requirement and law, not in the threat of negative consequences.
If I tell my children they have to obey me or they will be grounded/spanked I am not abusing my power.

The line between unrighteous dominion and natural consequence is very thin, and probably directly relating to the source of the law to be obeyed.
 

Those are not equivalent. 

Marrying the prophet is not one of the ten commandments. Any man of integrity and honor who knows the gravity of what he is asking of a female should behave much more honorably than Joseph did. He should be doubly assured that he is not himself deceived and that the female can fully consent, and she should be able to consent to marry or not marry Joseph the man, not Joseph the prophet.

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Anybody who can name polygamist men but can't name their wives shouldn't be in the conversation.

This!!!  So true.

Unfortunately, that leaves out most (or at least very many) active members of the church.  If they do know the names of any, I would think it's either Eliza R. Snow or maybe Zina Huntington?  

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, juliann said:

 Anybody who can name polygamist men but can't name their wives shouldn't be in the conversation.

I think this may be the first time I have agreed with you on anything related to polygamy.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Those are not equivalent.

Marrying the prophet is not one of the ten commandments. Any man of integrity and honor who knows the gravity of what he is asking of a female should behave much more honorably than Joseph did. He should be doubly assured that he is not himself deceived and that the female can fully consent, and she should be able to consent to marry or not marry Joseph the man, not Joseph the prophet.

Obeying God is the commandment.
We can debate whether or not Joseph was executing the commands of God, but rejecting a law of God brings with it damnation every time.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

Unless you have lived in near starvation levels, I don't think it fair to judge cultures who placed their family needs above the needs of non-family.  It makes sense to me to tap into the deep well of family loyalty in order to motivate people with little to share what they have.

If such methods were required these days with our great wealth, it would be very sad...but look how hard it is at times for people to be sympathetic to those who belong to other countries, ethnic groups, etc.  And then look how often behaviour changes when one of the "others" become a family member.  Even today, making someone family will open up willingness to share where it was lacking previously.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

This!!!  So true.

Unfortunately, that leaves out most (or at least very many) active members of the church.  If they do know the names of any, I would think it's either Eliza R. Snow or maybe Zina Huntington?  

Do our own ancestors count?  

In my stake, there are several descendants of John Hess. My YW president and I used to tease each other, because she stems from the 16 year-old trophy wife, and I'm from the first wife. For me, the stories of my own ancestors are mostly positive, with some negative. But they dispel the myth that polygamy was largely an unmitigated disaster and travesty. 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless you have lived in near starvation levels, I don't think it fair to judge cultures who placed their family needs above the needs of non-family. 

But the problem is, this isn't what was happening in Nauvoo (at least with most of the polygamous marriages).  And this is why there's so much damage now to the church because members are learning that it wasn't the "poor widows" who needed to be taken care of because their husbands had been killed by the angry mobs, etc.   Members are learning the truth, that teenagers and other men's wives were included in Joseph's plural marriages.  

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Obeying God is the commandment.
We can debate whether or not Joseph was executing the commands of God, but rejecting a law of God brings with it damnation every time.

So you are saying that the word of the prophet is absolute, unconditional, and not to be questioned, neither by members or the prophet himself.

I am saying that in addition to the source one should also seek for divine light that clarifies the reasons directly. Mary was impregnated so Christ could enter the flesh. Nephi slayed Laban to protect his family and obtain the plates. Both extraordinary measures had very specific purposes.

God is not nonsensical. 

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless you have lived in near starvation levels, I don't think it fair to judge cultures who placed their family needs above the needs of non-family.  It makes sense to me to tap into the deep well of family loyalty in order to motivate people with little to share what they have.

If such methods were required these days with our great wealth, it would be very sad...but look how hard it is at times for people to be sympathetic to those who belong to other countries, ethnic groups, etc.  And then look how often behaviour changes when one of the "others" become a family member.  Even today, making someone family will open up willingness to share where it was lacking previously.

And it was one of the almost non-existent advantages to penniless women in that it gave them a share in or ownership of property. It was at the expense of other women, however, but still. Whatever was going on, the Saints certainly can't be faulted for not being generous and sharing (for the most part) but expecting people to be supported forever is nonsense. Women got by because of help from family usually. The jobs they could get were women's jobs which means they were poverty level, unless you were a midwife or something. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But the problem is, this isn't what was happening in Nauvoo (at least with most of the polygamous marriages).  And this is why there's so much damage now to the church because members are learning that it wasn't the "poor widows" who needed to be taken care of because their husbands had been killed by the angry mobs, etc.   Members are learning the truth, that teenagers and other men's wives were included in Joseph's plural marriages.  

I was only responding to Tacenda's comments which I read in the context of ancient Levitate marriage as we have had the conversation before.  My comments in that post did not apply Nauvoo.

I have never made the claim for the modern church...at least not since I read Widtsoe in my teens/twenties...that polygamy existed to care for widows.

Levirate marriage existed in order for a man's name to be carried on.  A clan/family might have little care about a widow from another clan without children who were of the clan's blood.  Her father's clan might be less than willing to have her back as an unmarried sister/aunt/daughter as back then a woman's worth was tied to her children.  Levitate marriage was a kindness to childless widows, imo.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do our own ancestors count?  

In my stake, there are several descendants of John Hess. My YW president and I used to tease each other, because she stems from the 16 year-old trophy wife, and I'm from the first wife. For me, the stories of my own ancestors are mostly positive, with some negative. But they dispel the myth that polygamy was largely an unmitigated disaster and travesty. 

Of course our ancestors count!

I have both wonderful stories and heartbreaking stories from the journals of my ancestors who lived polygamy.

I believe the saints were wonderful, obedient people.  I feel bad for many of the men just as I do the women (my g-g-g-g-grandfather was commanded by BY to take another wife after he already lived in poverty with his 4 wives and it was disastrous for all involved...he took a 15 year old and it is heart wrenching to read how it played out for her, his other wives, and for him...but he was such a good man trying to obey God).

[Darren10]

On 4/17/2017 at 1:45 PM, Gray said:

Actually in Mormonism God doesn't determine what is moral or not. It's independent of God. 

Huh? 

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was only responding to Tacenda's comments which I read in the context of ancient Levitate marriage as we have had the conversation before.  My comments in that post did not apply Nauvoo.

Oh, didn't see that.  This thread has been hard to keep up with!

Joseph did marry his brother's widow (Don Carlos's) in what was a Levirite marriage.  I believe he did this to care for her and her children.  So it's not that it didn't take place in Nauvoo (it just wasn't that common).

Also with what took place with some of Joseph's plural wives marrying apostles after his death...

Edited April 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Darren10]

On 4/17/2017 at 2:15 PM, Gray said:

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

Huh? If a 38 year old treats a marriage to a 14 year old as a marriage it is immoral according to the Holy Spirit? I've known a lot of 14 years olds in Brazil far more mature, responsible, and level headed than many 18 year olds in the States. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Darren10

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do our own ancestors count?  

In my stake, there are several descendants of John Hess. My YW president and I used to tease each other, because she stems from the 16 year-old trophy wife, and I'm from the first wife. For me, the stories of my own ancestors are mostly positive, with some negative. But they dispel the myth that polygamy was largely an unmitigated disaster and travesty. 

The myth is that it was a blessed experience which forced women to rise above the normal feeling of jealousy (which men apparently didn't suffer from.) It gave them the wonderful ability to leave their children and go off to medical school (One of the most bizarre defenses ever.)  Given the isolation of a lot of these women, the babysitting thing rings hollow. Not to mention that the vast majority of us have managed without live in nannies. It's not like the women weren't helping each other regardless of family ties or that there wasn't family around anyway. 

Here's the thing with the negative. We see it as positive if they made it through. A diary will not be a nonstop attack on family members. It will only have some mentions and I suspect it had to be pretty darn bad to get that. So we tend to treat those negative mentions as a one time thing rather than one mention of an ongoing nightmare. We also tend to prioritize the men's accounts. I can't remember the name, but someone in church was reading his journal which states that the wives got along just great, one big happy family.  I was reading Ulrich's  women's accounts. Not all those wives were getting along just great at all. We deprive these women the honor of acknowledging their sacrifices when we don't want to admit that it was not a happy life. We erase them. I'm not saying this is what happened in your case, but I see it over and over. 

It becomes a corollary to the Not-All-Man! cartoon. In Mormondom, we are deeply embedded in positive stories. That is the baseline. We need to start talking about the not so positive ones to ever understand what was going on. 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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.

I most definitely agree for our culture. However much of our culture and government are technological innovations that progressed over thousands of years. When you're talking primitive Palestine saying they can simply be helped by the community doesn't necessarily follow.

Now you could say that when Moses set up ancient Israel that God should have done things in a very different fashion. One might say that Moses and God tried that and the Israelites weren't willing to live under such a government. As Iraq and Afghanistan have shown in contemporary times knowing what makes good government doesn't mean the people are willing to do it when given a chance. Given free will I think nation building is as hard for God as it is for us. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or one can approach it as they screwed up trying to make sense of a brand new principle/idea that they had little to no exposure to and thus messed up practicing and teaching, implying things that weren't true, making connections that weren't eternally necessary once one knew the next version of God 's family sealing (the revelation that came to WW).

I realize that people assume that such revelations are given in full context with all important questions answered, but most revelations---if not all that we have examples of---are not given that way.  line upon line is repeated both in teaching and in example from the beginning of covenanted times...so mistakes would naturally occur in my view and sometimes whoppers as overconfidence popped up due to so much new knowledge being shared.

This is certainly the approach that I take to most revealed truths. I take Paul literally that we see through a glass, darkly and by we I include the leaders of the church. I'm pretty sure that's a minority view in the church though. When I try to apply this to other areas where we might be seeing through a glass darkly (say gay marriage), these views aren't welcome. I think by far the more accepted, and pretty much only acceptable view to voice in orthodox settings is the one espoused by Elder Bednar. We can infer Elder Bednar's view from his April 2014 address in general conference when he declared we know Christ's birthday by revelation. (i.e. in Elder Bednar's view, the intro to D&C 20 is inspired enough and direct enough to know that Christ was born on April 6, 1 BCE, contrary evidence be damned). 

[Darren10]

On 4/17/2017 at 2:29 PM, Gray said:

I guess it depends on who is asking and who is listening. In general the scriptures aren't great at condemning sexual violence and abuse, although the Book of Mormon at least takes a stab at it (while not addressing what we would call statutory rape). 

The Book of Mormon as I read it condemns immorality in the sense of using the name of plural marriage to justify having sexual relations with people other than with one's martial spouse. The bad Nephites apparently used King David *and* Solomon an example of such a practiced. In emphasized Solomon because he clearly practiced plural marriage outside God's authority. And as for King David, this is the only scripture I know of of ancient origin which has God's explicit approval of plural marriage and later its condemnation based upon David's righteousness.

Quote

7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2 Samuel 12

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Huh? 

From Alma 42:

 

Quote

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

God executes, but does not create, these laws. If He created them then mercy could rob justice and God would not cease to be God. 

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Huh? If a 38 year old treats a marriage to a 14 year old as a marriage it is immoral according to the Holy Spirit? I've known a lot of 14 years olds in Brazil far more mature and responsible, and level headed than many 18 year olds in the States. 

Yes, it's immoral. 14 year olds can't consent to such arrangements. It's an unequal partnership between an adult and a child, regardless of nationality. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Gray

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

And it was one of the almost non-existent advantages to penniless women in that it gave them a share in or ownership of property. It was at the expense of other women, however, but still. Whatever was going on, the Saints certainly can't be faulted for not being generous and sharing (for the most part) but expecting people to be supported forever is nonsense. Women got by because of help from family usually. The jobs they could get were women's jobs which means they were poverty level, unless you were a midwife or something. 

I wasn't thinking about modern times in my comment, though I definitely agree with the above.  The LDS community of the time does seem to be better at sharing, had to be with all the in essence single mothers due to absent fathers (missions or attending to others in their polygamous families) in addition to groups moving into an area that needed mass works to become fertile, communities growing so fast as to need several community buildings raised, with the sharing expected through offerings and tithes, important your neighbour is doing well so they can contribute, so you help your neighbour build up their property.  It would be interesting to compare to similar settling new territory nonreligious groups, especially ones where there were strong divisions in faith.

Daynes's More Than One demonstrates how plural marriage allowed immigrant women to partake of wealth even when they arrived alone, without family.  Compare that to the options of single women in western towns that weren't Mormon.

So it isn't so much "poor widows" but in part a useful method of spreading the wealth (I think this was an unintended side benefit).  If one is a wife, the husband owes the woman a living.  Perhaps some women preferred that to being dependent on community charity as a single woman.  Also often charity is given to help others survive, not so often is it given to allow them to thrive where investing in a family member comes more naturally.

Not saying this justifies polygamy, but it does imo go significantly to why the communities were apparently comfortable with it for awhile.  As they got better established and less immigrants came in, polygyny rates dropped even though that generation had been raised with polygyny as a norm.

----

I have a journal of a daughter of a first wife, her mother seems to express a comradeship with other plural wives in the community while hinting at mutual disdain between monogamous wives and polygynous wives...both expressing in terms of pity their view of the other (mono saw poly as poor and thus commented poor state of homes, poly saw mono as silly, selfish, and lazy and thus commented on poor state of homes...both saw the same problem in the other and lacking in themselves; don't know how widespread it was, but a perfect example of human nature when they see others who are different who they think are judging them).

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, it's immoral. 14 year olds can't consent to such arrangements. It's an unequal partnership between an adult and a child, regardless of nationality. 

Again relative to our knowledge today I fully agree. I'd note that 14 year olds also shouldn't be fighting in wars, shouldn't be leaving home to work fulltime in backbreaking jobs with their survival dependent on their success at making money, and so forth. Yet until the last century (and even far too often then) that was frequently the status of 14 year olds.

So I think it's largely a luxury our astounding wealth relative to historic standards provides us that we are able to allow teenagers that space. I fully support laws keeping such responsibilities from them too. But let's not kid ourselves that this is anything than a huge major change in our societal understanding and rules.