Elder Oaks and Elder Ballard "Face to Face" Event: Dealing with doubts

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

They absolutely were "okay with it." I've asked people before to check and get back to me with how old their great-great-great grandmas and grandpas were when they were married, and it is often sobering for them. It wasn't every couple every time, of course, but I want to say something like 40% of the women were teens when they were married and their husbands *averaged* 26 (meaning that many were much older than that). This is recollection based on Greg Smith's sharing of 1850 census information (the closest in time to the period in question). 

This came up the other night at dinner. I had made some really good breaded fried pork chops with sauteed mushrooms, and I asked the kids if they remembered reading the story in the 8th grade reading book our district used to use by the screenwriter for "Who Shot Liberty Valance." The surprise ending of the story was that her stepmother was a teenager whom her father married when they were little girls (the girl had cared for them while their father was away, and when they ran out of food, she gathered giant mushrooms, fried them, and then ate one. The girls clamored for food, and she wouldn't give them any, and they were resentful. She expected to die from eating the mushrooms, but wanted to be sure they wouldn't kill the little girls. When she survived, they feasted on them. The closing line of the story was, "My mother was an amazing woman"). This turned the discussion to the past prevalence of wives being teenagers and their husbands being much older.

Needless to say, this is not going to be a shelf-breaker for my kids.  They already know about it.

I want your recipe for the pork chops. 

My dad, a farmer by profession, was good at telling the edible mushrooms apart from the poisonous ones. More than once we feasted after harvesting a crop from our front lawn. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh dear, I must have missed that! Well have a wonderful holiday with him now!!

You didn’t miss anything. I hadn’t mentioned it until now. 

He has almost completed a semester in college. But he has been too busy for us to enjoy much time with him. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree people find fault all the time...I'm guilty of it.

Yes, me too.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I believe the church wants to stay away from anything resembling Warren Jeffs' church for sure and that is why the church has PR out there, I don't blame them.

The Church does not have a "PR" department.  It has a Public Affairs network.  "Public Relations" and "Public Affairs" are not interchangeable.

My parents are presently serving as "Public Affairs" missionaries in Africa.  In Zimbabwe, matter of fact.  Their boots-on-the-ground reports of the coup in that country have been . . . interesting.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sometimes I have to recheck my thinking. I think the church shouldn't be held accountable for past mistakes, they could apologise for leaders that have made wrong choices though. And try to make good choices that involve so many lives.

The problem, I think, arises when the Church's self-appointed critics foment near-constant calls/demands for apologies, usually about issues that would involve the Church apologizing to someone else (not the critics).  About everything under the sun.  It's hard to take these public calls/demands as being presented in good faith.

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think the church has so many good qualities and like a person that has done things in the past they're not proud of, maybe we should cut leaders a break and think ahead to the future. And remember the good things the church has done and will continue to do. I wouldn't want someone bringing up my past of things I've done wrong either.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Marriageable age in the 1800s was around 16.  
That is when eligible young ladies made their debut into society.  This tradition is in many, many cultures.
In many Latin cultures it was 15, hence the quinceañera where gifts were given to provide a dowry.  In the South they had debutantes and cotillions.  In England they referred to young women being "out in society".  Even today when 18 is the age of adulthood these traditions continue, sweet sixteen parties and all that.  

And the further back you go the younger marriageable age was.  In some earlier societies the age was younger than 16.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Ages_of_marriage).  Henry VIII was 49 and his fifth wife was 16.  Imagine the scandal today.
But that is presentism.  In Joseph's day 16 was seen as old enough to marry, and just as today there were always a few outliers from the generally accepted age.

In short, society accepted 15-16 as old enough to get married until the 20th century and laws allowed marriage as young as 14.  So culturally and legally there was no problem with the age of the bride.

So if the age of the bride isn't the societal issue, was age difference considered an issue in the 1800s?
I'll have to look later.

ETA - Smac beat me to it.  Looks like neither the age of the bride nor the age gap was a problem in the 1800s.
So our problem with it is pure presentism.

 

But there is the problem of polygamy being against the law though.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

So, do you think the polygamy essay saying a few months shy of 15 instead of saying only 9 months after her 14th birthday was for presentism purposes?

I can't say for certain without knowing the intent of the people who wrote the essay.
But if you are asking my own opinion, yes, it was probably PR to appease the presentists. 

Although a few months shy of 15 and 9 months past 14 mean the exact same thing.  Kind of like the old retailer marketing trick of pricing something at $2.99 instead of $3.00.

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

But there is the problem of polygamy being against the law though.

Yes, polygamy was against the law.  Never disagreed with that.  The ages of the participants are irrelevant to that issue.

But God had never banned polygamy on principle as a sin (Jacob 2 being a ban due to wickedness and abuse of the practice, not principle).
Historically speaking God seems to have favored men who happened to be polygamists.  And age never seems to be an issue for him, what with Mary having his child around age 14.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I can't say for certain without knowing the intent of the people who wrote the essay.
But if you are asking my own opinion, yes, it was probably PR to appease the presentists. 

Although a few months shy of 15 and 9 months past 14 mean the exact same thing.  Kind of like the old retailer marketing trick of pricing something at $2.99 instead of $3.00.

 

Exactly. Surely there was a lot of thought given to how Helen Mar's age was phrased and a few months shy of 15 sounds better than just 9 months after turning 14 or 1 yr 9 months after turning 13.

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

They absolutely were "okay with it."

Well that sounds like an overstatement, Rongo.  Absolutely?  That's a stretch if ever there was one.  

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've asked people before to check and get back to me with how old their great-great-great grandmas and grandpas were when they were married, and it is often sobering for them. It wasn't every couple every time, of course, but I want to say something like 40% of the women were teens when they were married and their husbands *averaged* 26 (meaning that many were much older than that). This is recollection based on Greg Smith's sharing of 1850 census information (the closest in time to the period in question). 

Well...this is, I hope you admit, no where near the parameters (38 year old male and 14 year old female) in question.  My dad was 26 when he married my mom who was a teenager.  Also, because it happened does not suggest anything about whether people thought it appropriate or not. 

32 minutes ago, rongo said:

This came up the other night at dinner. I had made some really good breaded fried pork chops with sauteed mushrooms, and I asked the kids if they remembered reading the story in the 8th grade reading book our district used to use by the screenwriter for "Who Shot Liberty Valance." The surprise ending of the story was that her stepmother was a teenager whom her father married when they were little girls (the girl had cared for them while their father was away, and when they ran out of food, she gathered giant mushrooms, fried them, and then ate one. The girls clamored for food, and she wouldn't give them any, and they were resentful. She expected to die from eating the mushrooms, but wanted to be sure they wouldn't kill the little girls. When she survived, they feasted on them. The closing line of the story was, "My mother was an amazing woman"). This turned the discussion to the past prevalence of wives being teenagers and their husbands being much older.

Needless to say, this is not going to be a shelf-breaker for my kids.  They already know about it.

Sounds fun.  Thanks for responding.  

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Exactly. Surely there was a lot of thought given to how Helen Mar's age was phrased and a few months shy of 15 sounds better than just 9 months after turning 14 or 1 yr 9 months after turning 13.

You and I may believe that to be the case, but we still have no knowledge of the intent or how it came to be.  I am willing to admit it is an assumption, although I consider it very likely to be PR.

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I can't say for certain without knowing the intent of the people who wrote the essay.
But if you are asking my own opinion, yes, it was probably PR to appease the presentists. 

Although a few months shy of 15 and 9 months past 14 mean the exact same thing.  Kind of like the old retailer marketing trick of pricing something at $2.99 instead of $3.00.

 

Calm already brought up the retailer marketing trick. I responded that it’s just as much of a mind trick to say she’s 14, as people typically aren’t apt to think the person is nearing age 15. I suspect that’s why some here are so insistent on only saying she was 14. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Calm already brought up the retailer marketing trick. I responded that it’s just as much of a mind trick to say she’s 14, as people typically aren’t apt to think the person is nearing age 15. I suspect that’s why some here are so insistent on only saying she was 15. 

How about just 9 months after she turned 14? Why not say that?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You and I may believe that to be the case, but we still have no knowledge of the intent or how it came to be.  I am willing to admit it is an assumption, although I consider it very likely to be PR.

What of some who want to deny that there was sex involved in JS's polygamous and polyandrous relationships, presentism?

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

They absolutely were "okay with it."

Not true.  Why such secrecy then?  (And how would you know that "they" were "okay with it" when most weren't even aware this marriage had taken place?)

The average age for marriage back then was still in the early 20's for women and for men.  Yes, there were teen girls who married, but did they marry 38 year old men?  Or men who already had a legal wife and dozens of other wives too? 

It's all of the details surrounding this particular sealing that cause many to have issues with it when they learn about it.  The age is a big factor, but it is not the only troubling fact regarding it for many.

Edited November 22, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

What of some who want to deny that there was sex involved in JS's polygamous and polyandrous relationships, presentism?

I am of the middle ground on this.
I believe there were relationships that were sexual (even the polyandrous ones) and relationships that were not sexual.

And I think there is just as much presentism in those who deny Joseph's intimate relations as there is in those who are scandalized by them.  Both are the result of our society and time.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true.  Why such secrecy then?  (And how would you know that "they" were "okay with it" when most weren't even aware this marriage had taken place?)

The average age for marriage back then was still in the early 20's for women and for men.  Yes, there were teen girls who married, but did they marry 38 year old men?  Or men who already had a legal wife and dozens of other wives too? 

It's all of the details surrounding this particular sealing that cause many to have issues with it when they learn about it.  The age is a big factor, but it is not the only troubling fact regarding it for many.

You are looking at "average age" instead of "marriageable age".
One is the age at which people in that society generally married.  The other is the age in which that society considered marriage appropriate.  They are not the same.
A woman in that society was considered old enough to be married at 15-16.  It would have shocked nobody.

The "secrecy" was about polygamy, not age.  And by "this particular sealing" I assume you mean Helen.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that there was a physical relationship between Joseph and 14 year old Helen who lived at home with her parents.

Edited November 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Pete Ahlstrom]

22 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am of the middle ground on this.
I believe there were relationships that were sexual (even the polyandrous ones) and relationships that were not sexual.

And I think there is just as much presentism in those who deny Joseph's intimate relations as there is in those who are scandalized by them.  Both are the result of our society and time.

I can agree with that.  However, I believe it was scandalous back then too, else why did Joseph Smith seek to hide it?

Edited November 23, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom
clarification

[ALarson]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

You are looking at "average age" instead of "marriageable age".

Agreed.  But that still does not mean that it was common for a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl.

Did it happen?  I'm sure it did.  But that doesn't mean it was average or common.

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First cousin marriages were a common thing in the 19th century, but today they trigger a significant "Ick!" response.

Thanks for the response, Smac.  I hope this finds you well.  I hope you see this is irrelevant to the issue raised.  

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The current "age gap" in the U.S. is about 2 years.  The gap was considerably bigger in the 19th century.

An age gape of 4 or 5 years does not in anyway support the notion that people thought it appropriate that a 36-38 year old male marry a 14 year old female.  Not even close to addressing the issue we're discussing.  

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And there's this bit about marriage in 19th-century English Canada (like America, only nicer!):

 

Quote

Brides in their teens almost invariably married men considerably older than themselves, on average six years their senior in the parishes sampled here. 

Again no where near what we're talking about here.  Feels again irrelevant to the issue at hand.  But this likely does support my notion that those in 1840s US considered a 36-38 year old male marrying a 14 year old female an inappropriate situation.  

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Pragmatic" marriages, in an LDS context, probably included "dynastic" (and non-sexual) marriages, which is how Todd Compton characterizes Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball.  

FAIR also does a pretty good job of pointing out 19th-century "mainstream" marriages which had significant age disparities, such as Johann Sebastian Bach (17 years older than his wife),

This is a problem comparison since he was in a different culture and was not a 19th century mainstreamer.  He was from the 17th century (2 centuries earlier).  He was 35 and she was 19.  Not the same parameters.  19 to most of humanity is quite different than 14.   

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Lord Baden-Powell (Founder of Scouting) (32 years older),

He was 55.  She was 23.  A world of difference between a 23 year old and a14 year old.  Also when it happened it was said to cause a media sensation because of the age difference, demonstrating, clearly, that people did think it inappropriate.  Again, you are supporting my point.  I've found the CFR issued has been answered in your post.  Thanks.  

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 Grover Cleveland (22nd, 24th US President) (28 years older), 

She was 22.  But you probably can't be serious that there was not a concern about this.  that many did not think their relationship appropriate are you?  

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thomas A. Edison (19 years older), John Milton (Paradise Lost) (31 years older), John Tyler (US President, 1844) (32 years older), Almonzo Wilder (10 years older), and so on.

Presentism, front and center!

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes.  This is more of the same.  I had a grandpa who married his second wife when he was 50...she was 19, the same age as his daughter, and she was in fact her daughter's friend.  But, likely, people thought that inappropriate.  The age gap itself, though, isn't the issue.  If a 38 year old married a 24 year old, well it might raise eyebrows in some quarters, but it also might not generally be considered all that inappropriate by today's standards.  Of course age difference is one thing, but we're talking about adding a different parameter here.  

Anyway.  thanks.  You fulfilled my CFR.  Any marriages that were large age gaps were often seen as inappropriate by others.  And none of the examples you offered included anyone as young as of Helen Mar and Nancy Winchester (even Edison's largely considered inappropriate marriage didn't go that young).  The age gap wasn't really the issue, on it's own, but based on it alone, of course many found it inappropriate, even then.  CFR fulfilled!

Take care, Smac.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

Agreed.  But that still does not mean that it was common for a 38 year old man to marry a 14 year old girl.

Did it happen?  I'm sure it did.  But that doesn't mean it was average or common.

Which means what?  Societal outliers can still be accepted by a society as moral.  I don't understand the "average" or "common" argument as to what is acceptable to a society.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I've asked people before to check and get back to me with how old their great-great-great grandmas and grandpas were when they were married, and it is often sobering for them. It wasn't every couple every time, of course, but I want to say something like 40% of the women were teens when they were married and their husbands *averaged* 26 (meaning that many were much older than that). This is recollection based on Greg Smith's sharing of 1850 census information (the closest in time to the period in question).

That is not a definite....not at all ("meaning that many were much older than that").  The average age could be 26 years old if some boys married at a young age as well and then some married when they were in their late late 20's.   That would put the average age at 26 as well.

If you look at the marriages back then (going from memory of research posted), the average age for a woman was in her early 20's to marry and then a bit older for men to marry.  That does not mean it was common for a "much older" man to marry a 14 year old girl.  And certainly not a 38 year old men who was already married to marry a 14 year old.  

It's not just the age difference that is troubling and I have not seen many who just take issue with that alone regarding this sealing.  However, most are taken aback when they learn Joseph married a girl this young.  I saw this first hand when I helped teach the 5th Sunday discussion in our ward on the polygamy essay.

Edited November 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not true.  Why such secrecy then?  (And how would you know that "they" were "okay with it" when most weren't even aware this marriage had taken place?)

The average age for marriage back then was still in the early 20's for women and for men.  Yes, there were teen girls who married, but did they marry 38 year old men?  Or men who already had a legal wife and dozens of other wives too? 

It's all of the details surrounding this particular sealing that cause many to have issues with it when they learn about it.  The age is a big factor, but it is not the only troubling fact regarding it for many.

I think the age issue in and of itself was not as scandalous if polygamy or polyandry weren't involved. The fact that he had more than one wife and that some of the wives were simultaneously married to other men is where the scandal lies. It looks like cheating being wrapped in religion.

However, I am glad I don't have to put a young daughter into that nonsense.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks for the response, Smac.  I hope this finds you well.  I hope you see this is irrelevant to the issue raised.  

Kinda.  I think presentism is the lens through which this problem is viewed, and the lens is a bit distorted.  On balance, I think 19th-century ideas about first cousin marriages were wrong, but they didn't.  I also think that 19th-century ideas about teens getting married were in some circumstances wrong, but those folks didn't necessarily agree.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

An age gape of 4 or 5 years does not in anyway support the notion that people thought it appropriate that a 36-38 year old male marry a 14 year old female.  Not even close to addressing the issue we're discussing.  

Cultural expectations are what they are.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Again no where near what we're talking about here.  Feels again irrelevant to the issue at hand.  But this likely does support my notion that those in 1840s US considered a 36-38 year old male marrying a 14 year old female an inappropriate situation.  

Okay.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  This is more of the same.  I had a grandpa who married his second wife when he was 50...she was 19, the same age as his daughter, and she was in fact her daughter's friend.  But, likely, people thought that inappropriate.  The age gap itself, though, isn't the issue. 

No, the issue seems to be perceptions.  Few people today approve of arranged marriages, or "pragmatic" marriages, or "dynastic" marriages.  

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Anyway.  thanks.  You fulfilled my CFR.  Any marriages that were large age gaps were often seen as inappropriate by others.  And none of the examples you offered included anyone as young as of Helen Mar and Nancy Winchester (even Edison's largely considered inappropriate marriage didn't go that young).  The age gap wasn't really the issue, on it's own, but based on it alone, of course many found it inappropriate, even then.  CFR fulfilled!

Take care, Smac.

You too!

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

How about just 9 months after she turned 14? Why not say that?

Doesn’t bother me. 

I’ve consistently said this whole thing is s lot of uproar over a silly, trivial matter. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t bother me. 

I’ve consistently said this whole thing is s lot of uproar over a silly, trivial matter. 

Do you think the uproar has anything to do with the use of the merchant's trick as you stated earlier or is it just the fact that 38 yr olds marrying 14 yr olds is very troubling to a lot of people, especially when the 38 yr old has many other wives already?

[Nevo]

Worth keeping in mind:

Quote

There are many exotic examples of early marriage in various cultures and countries, but the society that we should be looking at is the New England and northeastern states culture that was the background for early Mormonism. The work of social historians allows us to conclude, with some precision, that very early marriage was rare in that environment. . . . The IPUMS data I cite show that in the New England and northeastern states, both in 1850 and 1880, marriage age at 13 to 15 was usually less than or about one percent.

— Todd M. Compton, "Early Marriage in the New England and Northeastern States, and in Mormon Polygamy: What Was the Norm?" in The Persistence of Polygamy: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, ed. Newell G. Bringhurst and Craig L. Foster (Independence, MO: John Whitmer Books, 2010), 230.

For another analysis of 1850 census data, see here: http://www.mormonism101.com/2014/12/closer-look-1850-census.html. The author notes that, "in general, the age gaps between Joseph Smith and his wives were two to three times higher than was customary in 1850 Ohio and Illinois."

Edited November 22, 2017 by Nevo