MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 20 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. Biology doesn't care about the calendar. There are 15 year olds more mature than 18 year olds. If it is legal in your state or country, and with the permission of the parents then there is nothing wrong that a 15 year old marries a 38 year old. Please give me biological, medical, or psychological evidence that it is harmful, but evidence that doesn't apply to an 18 year old. In Austria the age of consent is 14 years, and it remains one of the happiest and peaceful countries on Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index#Global_Peace_Index_rankings On 4/17/2017 at 0:01 PM, cinepro said: The problem is that at the time he was sealed to her, the 38-year-old Prophet Joseph Smith was legally married to another woman, and illegally married/sealed to several others (and with the marriage to HMK being kept secret from that first legally married wife). The arrangement also seems to have involved some sort of persuasion that was based on Joseph's role as a religious leader in the community. 1. Parents allowed it 2. It was legal. Where is the problem? Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 23 hours ago, JulieM said: But we don't know when Joseph taught Emma the doctrine of plural marriage, do we? So how would we know if she'd rejected the doctrine before Joseph took his first plural wife without her consent? She was aware of it by the time D&C 132 was given. http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/emma-smith-plural-marriage/ Note: I could not seem to get the first two paragraphs to cut and paste on this post but those two are the relevant paragraphs.
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 39 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? and how do you know is the spirit? Some people commit horrible things because they think god told them to do it. Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
pogi Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 11 minutes ago, juliann said: Not to mention that the vast majority of us have managed without live in nannies. Barely! 15 minutes ago, juliann said: 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. From the journal of my female ancestor, Louisa Harriett Mills: "My life has been that of a polygamist wife with happiness all around..." This was evidenced throughout her journal. It would be wrong to characterize polygamous marriages as an "ongoing nightmare" if there was any mention of negative experiences in their journal. We would not read monogamist journals that way, why should we do it with polygamist journals? Sure polygamist marriages do have unique challenges, but so do monogamist marriages. They each have their pros and cons. Monogamist marriages don't necessarily have the best track record either with 50%+ ending in divorce. Many living polygamists from different cultures can testify that they can be successful and happy marriages. 1
cinepro Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 21 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: 1. Parents allowed it 2. It was legal. Where is the problem? Just so I'm clear, in what way would you say it was "legal"? 1
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Gray said: From Alma 42: 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. It does not say, "God executes, but does not create, these laws" though I can understand why that is your conclusion. However, what if it simply means God is irrelevant? Alma 42 is about why God will not simply forgive people of their sins and the answer given by Alma is that if God were to do so, "God would cease to be God". I ask, if God dimply gorgave people of their dins, why eould anyone serve Him? Whether you do or don't the result is the same, salvation. The same is true on the extreme opposite end. What if God condemned people for their sins, with no forgiveness. Then whether we serve Him or not, the results will be the same, damnation. By offering justice but not at the expense of mercy and by offering mercy but not at the expense if justice, God remains a very relevant God and our service to Him will render very differing results. This perfect balance is made by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. By it, infinite mercy is offered and justice is fully satisfied. God remains God by remaining a relevant and demanding people obey His command. God is exalted, perfect, and has a physicsl body. Law is nit exalted, not perfect, will never have a physicsl body required for exaltation. I fail to see how an exalted being is bound by anything not exalted and in Mormonism, God the Father is the greatest of all. To that there is no doubt. Edited April 18, 2017 by Darren10
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, pogi said: It would be wrong to characterize polygamous marriages as an "ongoing nightmare" if there was any mention of negative experiences in their journal. We would not read monogamist journals that way, why should we do it with polygamist journals? Yes! There is nothing wrong with plural and open marriages. Seriously. We need open marriage in our country because "60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage" and "Biological evidence (i.e., research on biology and reproduction) indicates that long-term monogamy is difficult for humans to achieve—NOT impossible, but difficult" Just my opinion. Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 2 minutes ago, cinepro said: Just so I'm clear, in what way would you say it was "legal"? In the 19th century it was legal to marry a teenager.
cinepro Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: In the 19th century it was legal to marry a teenager. Not if you're already married. Edited April 18, 2017 by cinepro 2
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: Not if you're already married. Marijuana is illegal in Utah, does that mean it is immoral? There is nothing wrong with plural marriage. Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 38 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. Says who? 14 year olds cannot consent to it? Yes they can but to make sure, consent is also required in any stare which allows a 14 year old to marry so far as I know. Also, in New York, as the sometimes saint linked to, a judges consent is alo needed. How is this immoral?
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, cinepro said: Not if you're already married. Only if states had anti bigomay laws which Illinois did and which Joseph Smith was most likely guilty of violating (absolutely guilty of violating if there were ever a court case delcaring so but I do not know of any). Edited April 18, 2017 by Darren10 1
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 20 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: and how do you know is the spirit? Some people commit horrible things because they think god told them to do it. Big topic there. Peace of mind and heart are the key features I think. It dies not mean all confusion and non understanding evaporates but there is constant peace.
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour 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. 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. Sorry Calm, I wasn't talking about ancient times, more speaking about the polygamy that some members believe to this day, that of helping the poor widowed women or those that needed help across the plains to Utah.
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 Just now, Darren10 said: Peace of mind and heart are the key features I think Please define all of that with details. Hippies also believed in "peace" and "love". Did John C. Wathey have a real spiritual experience? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/book-review-the-illusion-of-gods-presence/
cinepro Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 6 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: Marijuana is illegal in Utah, does that mean it is immoral? There is nothing wrong with plural marriage. So we agree that Joseph's polygamous marriages were illegal (and when you said "It was legal" you were wrong)? And so when you said "Where's the problem?", now you can where the problem is since half the reasons you gave justifying it not being a problem were incorrect? 3
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 Great conversation. I have to go. I probably won' be back for while because many don't like my comments.
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 12 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: Yes! There is nothing wrong with plural and open marriages. Seriously. We need open marriage in our country because "60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage" and "Biological evidence (i.e., research on biology and reproduction) indicates that long-term monogamy is difficult for humans to achieve—NOT impossible, but difficult" Just my opinion. That was what some LDS leaders actually used to say! But IMO, you're so wrong!
MormonVideoGame Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: That was what some LDS leaders actually used to say! But IMO, you're so wrong! Read "God Virus, The: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture" by ATHEIST psychologist Dr Ray. Dr. Ray supports plural and open marriages. He doesn't even condemn some affairs under certain circumstances. https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519 No offence to religious people here. Book not for people of faith. Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
Tacenda Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: Read "God Virus, The: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture" by ATHEIST psychologist Dr Ray. Dr. Ray supports plural and open marriages. He doesn't even condemn affairs in some cases. https://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-Religion-Infects-Culture/dp/0970950519 No offence to religious people here. Book not for people of faith. I've been trying to round up quotes from a couple of LDS leaders in case you issued a CFR. What I should have said in my remark was that was close to their line of thinking. Something to the idea that polygamy keeps men from going to prostitutes or something. But my computer is so slow right now. I was panicking, lol. Or how men stay younger looking when living polygamy. Edited April 18, 2017 by Tacenda 1
Calm Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 23 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: Yes! There is nothing wrong with plural and open marriages. Seriously. We need open marriage in our country because "60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage" and "Biological evidence (i.e., research on biology and reproduction) indicates that long-term monogamy is difficult for humans to achieve—NOT impossible, but difficult" Just my opinion. You need to demonstrate that these open marriages are more likely to stay intact than marriages that are intended to be faithful before claiming "we need open marriage".
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: 14 year olds can't consent to such . Why? In our society today we don't think they can. But is that based on any concrete fact?
rongo Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour ago, juliann said: 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. But it seems like you automatically assume that if they aren't writing about the negatives, well, that's because they just didn't write about them, but of course they were there. I'm not sure that's an honest attempt to get at the core of "understanding what was going on," because you try to mind-read and not go by what their own words were. There were a myriad of experiences. I had ancestors where the wives did get along really well, based not only on their journals, but family traditions from the different wives (i.e., what was handed down via oral tradition). And my ancestors didn't sugar coat, and were willing to comment on frustrations or disappointments. John Hess, whom I mentioned, is not what I would call a bright spot. He married the 16 year-old when his other wives were elderly, and he paraded her around and showed her off and neglected his prior wives socially and emotionally. What is amazing to me is the net positive that accrues to his posterity, despite this. There is a lot of spiritual soundness and dedication among many of his posterity from all of his wives, neglected, or, in the case of my YW president, the young trophy wife. BYU's IT department and Family Search have a website where people can see how they are related to all sorts of people. Our stake has a page within that where stake members can see how they are related to other stake members as well. It's amazing (and fun) to see this, especially when people are totally unaware of the relation (which is sometimes surprisingly close). This is another legacy of polygamy. To this day, in 2017, despite the decades of first-generation Mormons, if you take a straw poll of people with ancestors from the polygamy period, it is still disproportionately high. Very, very high, and much higher than conventional wisdom would indicate. This is also true of converts with no apparent polygamous ancestry, who, come to find out, do have ancestors from the polygamy period. The positive effects of polygamy disproportionately continue to reverberate through generations, and continue to play a role in the gathering of Israel.
Calm Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 I have yet to see a family situation that didn't have negatives. I would judge my family as very close in most ways, we all helped around the house and both Dad and Mom were intimately involved in our lives and never intentionally said or did anything that would hurt us once they figured out spanking wasn't useful to change behaviour in a positive way. We still have a sibling that refuses to talk to anyone else in the family save for rare occasions. And we all have hang ups and the usual bad habits of avoidance, etc. If I only read good things about a family, I don't think it is dishonest to believe there were negatives involved if you see it in pretty much every family you have that level of contact with.
Gray Posted April 18, 2017 Posted April 18, 2017 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: 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. Yes, this is a piece of moral development that we've come to understand relatively recently. I think that goes to show that commandments of God can emerge from the ground up - you don't need a specific person or institution or holy book to declare everything. We're constantly learning and hopefully improving. We can interpret this as a kind of revelation too.
Recommended Posts