Age of Consent

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
In our society today we don't think they can.  But is that based on any concrete fact?

Based on what we know about cognitive limitations of people of that age, combined with sound moral reasoning. 

[Gray]

54 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

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?  

It's immoral for the same reason relationships between master and slave are immoral. There is no meaningful consent. It's generally understood now,  by most normally-socialized individuals, that this is abusive behavior on the part of the adult. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

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. 

But in Mormonism the Father is not the greatest of all. The Father was once like us, and so there is an infinite regress of Gods. According to Alma, God doesn't create the rules, God has to live by them, the same as we do. So in essence, existence itself is the greatest of all. Existence gives rise to Gods and the laws of God. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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

 

1. Parents allowed it 

2. It was legal. 

Where is the problem? 

 

The brain doesn't finish developing until the early 20s. Regardless of how "ready" you might think an adolescent is, they are still children and are not ready to make these kinds of decisions until adulthood. Marriage between adolescents is unwise - marriage between an adult and an adolescent is pernicious and abusive. It's not just about science - it's also about morality. 

 

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by Gray

[Calm]

Teens are often characterized as rebellious and impossible to push into behaving a desired way.

I am not sure they are more susceptible to pressure than adults who are in similar positions of dependency...which would be almost all women before the last century or so and many men.

What if what makes the difference in being able to resist pressure is a belief in one's own independence and not so much ability to reason things a certain logical way (just because the brain is capable of such reasoning doesn't mean it is employed for making decisions about marriage by adults)?

Edited April 18, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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.

While I think the attempt to portray them all as bad is misleading, I think it also unfair to portray them as on par with monogamous marriages even acknowledging that leadership did a particularly poor job implementing the doctrine. I just don't believe it is something that would be easy to live for anyone in those relationships given our biology, society, and limited knowledge. So I'm very skeptical many polygamist marriages were as happy as an equivalent monogamous marriage would have been. Which again is separate from the issue of whether it was commanded.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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

 

1. Parents allowed it 

2. It was legal. 

Where is the problem? 

That seems a silly argument since it confuses aggregate happiness with the happiness of those who marry at 14. In parts of the US in the 19th century the age of consent was 7 or 10. It's just that no one got married at that age. I bet in Australia almost no one gets married at 14. Further I bet those few who did were statistically less happy with more struggles in the marriage than those who had their first marriages after 25. Of course we likely don't have the data to be able to tell that, but that's the kind of data you need to make a valid argument akin to what you're attempting.

Edited April 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

The brain doesn't finish developing until the early 20s. Regardless of how "ready" you might think an adolescent is, they are still children and are not ready to make these kinds of decisions until adulthood. Marriage between adolescents is unwise - marriage between an adult and an adolescent is pernicious and abusive. It's not just about science - it's also about morality.

 

http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html

 

• 20s and beyond
  According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. (See J. Giedd in References.) The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination and continued adding and pruning of neurons. As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

Well, that's got me convinced.
Raise the minimum marriage age in the United States to 25.
And the voting age, and the driving age, etc.

Clearly all those 21 year olds out there aren't able to consent to anything.
And while we're at it, let's change the statutory rape laws.  That 19 year old guy is just as unable to consent as his 15 year old girlfriend.  Apparently.

And as long as we are concerned about 100% complete brain development before we allow consent to marry, we should probably ban all those old age pensioners with just a touch of dementia from marrying in their old age as well.

 

 

Edited April 18, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

• 20s and beyond
  According to recent findings, the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. (See J. Giedd in References.) The specific changes that follow young adulthood are not yet well studied, but it is known that they involve increased myelination and continued adding and pruning of neurons. As a number of researchers have put it, "the rental car companies have it right." The brain isn't fully mature at 16, when we are allowed to drive, or at 18, when we are allowed to vote, or at 21, when we are allowed to drink, but closer to 25, when we are allowed to rent a car.

Well, that's got me convinced.
Raise the minimum marriage age in the United States to 25.
And the voting age, and the driving age, etc.

Clearly all those 21 year olds out there aren't able to consent to anything.
And while we're at it, let's change the statutory rape laws.  That 19 year old guy is just as unable to consent as his 15 year old girlfriend.  Apparently.

 

 

Perhaps! Obviously the closer you get to 25 the more equipped you are to make complex decisions. 18 is at least a good starting point, and preferable to younger ages when the brain is even LESS developed. I wasn't mature at 18, and far less so at 14. 

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, Gray said:

...marriage between an adult and an adolescent is pernicious and abusive.

What part of that marriage do you think necessarily is or would be pernicious and/or abusive?

The part about them wanting to be and stay together, or the part about them having sexual relations together?

Nobody has to grow up on their own, all by themselves, single, with no marriage partner or partners.  Growing up, growing wiser and more mature, to perfection, is something marriage partners can do together.

[MormonVideoGame]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

The brain doesn't finish developing until the early 20s. Regardless of how "ready" you might think an adolescent is, they are still children and are not ready to make these kinds of decisions until adulthood. Marriage between adolescents is unwise - marriage between an adult and an adolescent is pernicious and abusive. It's not just about science - it's also about morality. 

I know an 18 year old girl that married a lucky 30 year old dude in the Temple. Is that abusive? 

 So why do LDS men go to a mission at age 18? Some go to very dangerous places, you against that? Why do some men join the military (risk their life) at 18? In the military 18 year olds get serious injuries and trauma, especially during war. 

Please give me biological, medical, or psychological evidence that it is harmful, but evidence that doesn't apply to an 18 year old. 

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

it's also about morality. 

It's all opinion. 

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems a silly argument since it confuses aggregate happiness with the happiness of those who marry at 14. 

No, but Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal are still happy countries. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[MormonVideoGame]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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".

I said it is "my opinion" because I can't prove it because of some limitations. However, here is a study 

Bergstrand, Curtis, and Jennifer Blevins Williams. "Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers." Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 3.10 (2000) 

and Dr. Edward Fernandes wrote "Although there is still a strong societal disapproval of swinging and a belief that swingers have unsatisfactory marriages and are unhappy with their primary relationships, there is no evidence to support such a claim. My research suggests that perhaps we are witnessing a new social paradigm regarding the dynamics of marriage and consensual extra-marital sex. It is possible that swinging is bringing about a re-definition of marriage and a change in the traditional expectation of marital monogamy. Future research on this topic is warranted and necessary to understand the changing dynamics of marital relationships."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-swinging-paradigm/201310/are-swingers-freaky-and-deviant

 

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

It's all opinion. 

No, but Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal are still happy countries. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

But again, the age of consent and the age of marriage aren't the same thing. You do see that right? If everyone was getting married at the age of consent you'd have an argument. By merely appealing to legal minimal age you're making no argument at all. Unless you think what makes a person who marries at 25 happy is knowing what the age of consent laws are. 

[Calm]

 Median age for first marriage in Austria in 2014 was 30 and 32.

14 year olds would be very rare.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

but Germany, Austria, Italy, Portugal are still happy countries. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

There are a number of counties with age of consent 14.  Do you see all of them likely to be in higher range of happiness?

Edited April 18, 2017 by Calm

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

THat's a pretty subjective determination.  I say let God decide that.  It very well could be that Joseph marrying Helen did more damage in the world than a young mother who struggled in raising her kid. 

I am good with that. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

There are a number of counties with age of consent 14.  Do you see all of them likely to be in higher range of happiness?

The happiness correlation is probably more related to freedom.  Less government interference generally (although not always) leads to increase happiness.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

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/

There are copy cats and no guarantees but thise are two key features of the Holy Spirit. 

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I said it is "my opinion" because I can't prove it because of some limitations. However, here is a study 

Bergstrand, Curtis, and Jennifer Blevins Williams. "Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers." Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality 3.10 (2000) 

and Dr. Edward Fernandes wrote "Although there is still a strong societal disapproval of swinging and a belief that swingers have unsatisfactory marriages and are unhappy with their primary relationships, there is no evidence to support such a claim. My research suggests that perhaps we are witnessing a new social paradigm regarding the dynamics of marriage and consensual extra-marital sex. It is possible that swinging is bringing about a re-definition of marriage and a change in the traditional expectation of marital monogamy. Future research on this topic is warranted and necessary to understand the changing dynamics of marital relationships."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-swinging-paradigm/201310/are-swingers-freaky-and-deviant

 

Very worldly article, great. 

But it reeks of immorality and not committing adultery is one of the 10 commandments. There are LDS that do it secretly, it was in the news a while back right in my hometown. How awful IMO, for the children to witness. I read an article and the swingers have parties at someone's home, with young children in the midst. 

How would you like it if you found out your parents participated in something like this? I think it is a decay on society.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's immoral for the same reason relationships between master and slave are immoral. There is no meaningful consent. It's generally understood now,  by most normally-socialized individuals, that this is abusive behavior on the part of the adult. 

Marriage is slavery? Good grief, join the relevant morality of today's society and leave traditionsl marriage alone.

[MormonVideoGame]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But again, the age of consent and the age of marriage aren't the same thing. You do see that right? If everyone was getting married at the age of consent you'd have an argument. By merely appealing to legal minimal age you're making no argument at all. Unless you think what makes a person who marries at 25 happy is knowing what the age of consent laws are. 

The only argument I am making is that the a younger age of consent by law  doesn't seem to affect a society.   The age of consent in Brazil is 14, but there is a lot of violence in Brazil. 

All I am trying to say is that a young age of consent doesn't make a society violent and immoral,  it doesn't affect.  Yes, I know the difference between consent and marriage.  

Edited April 18, 2017 by MormonVideoGame

[JLHPROF]

Just now, MormonVideoGame said:

All I am trying to say is that a young age of consent doesn't make a society violent or immoral, there is no evidence that it has an impact.

Agreed.
It is when consent is taken off the table (as in the FLDS communities) where there is an impact.
Age is not the issue, agency is.

[Glenn101]

53 minutes ago, Gray said:

Perhaps! Obviously the closer you get to 25 the more equipped you are to make complex decisions. 18 is at least a good starting point, and preferable to younger ages when the brain is even LESS developed. I wasn't mature at 18, and far less so at 14. 

Does mental development equal social/moral maturity??? I think not. I have nothing right now to back me up or refute me, but I do not believe that age itself, or rather mental development alone is an indicator of maturity. Maturity comes with experiences, but not all mature at the same rate. There are some at fourteen that are more mature than some in their thirty-something years.

It is difficult, if not impossible to compare general maturity levels between current generations and those of one hundred and fifty plus years ago. It is still presentism to try to judge the cultural mores, etc. of those generations by the things we believe today. You are not going to change any of it.

 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

But in Mormonism the Father is not the greatest of all. The Father was once like us, and so there is an infinite regress of Gods. According to Alma, God doesn't create the rules, God has to live by them, the same as we do. So in essence, existence itself is the greatest of all. Existence gives rise to Gods and the laws of God. 

"But in Mormonism the Father is not the greatest of all." -  

Mormonism *absolutely* declares the Father greatest of all. 

Quote

8 And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

(snip)

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

Abrahsm 3

Kolob governs all planets for Kolob is "nigh unto" God's throne. It is the Father here speaking to Abraham. 

There is no restraint, nothing too hard, all things were created ("all things" would include laws, yes?), all things are possible by God, God is omnipotent , etc.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-power-of?lang=eng

Law does not make all things possible in and on itself, it needs a creator to exist and an enforcer to enact and uphold it. Law is not omnipotent.

Quote

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Romans 13

Power is not ordained of law is it? Law is not the source of power, never has been, never will be.

--------------------------------------------------------

There is no scripture stating the Father was ever "just like us". Even the King Follet Sermon is not LDS cannon and thus no obligation for any Mormon to believe it. 

Alma does NOT say God does not create the rules. It lays out the purpose of laws and consequences to violating the laws. If there were no consequences then there would br no real reason to seve God for our end would already be determined thus God is irrelevant to us thus "cea(es) to be God". That's how I read Alma 42. I find no absolute in there saying God has to obey law or else God will suffer the consequences.

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

If a woman or girl marries because of abusive priesthood authority, even if others refuse, it does not make the abuse okay.

I agree with that. Now, who but God can make that determination in a case so far behind in time, especially when the person in question averred throughout her life that she had received a witness that plural marriage was a true principle?