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

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

The question was asked it it was acceptable or if people back then were "okay with it".    I think the secrecy surrounding this sealing was partially because of how young Helen was.  I know other sealings were done in secret as well, but her young age was a factor here, IMO.

[ALarson]

12 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. 

Trivial for you, but not for some others.  I admit it's not a big deal for me either (although I do readily admit that I think it's obvious why Helen's age was worded in the manner it was in the essay).   I understand why it was done too and don't believe it's an evil conspiracy.  The writer was just trying to soften or downplay as much as possible that she was only 14 years old, IMO.  

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The question was asked it it was acceptable or if people back then were "okay with it".    I think the secrecy surrounding this sealing was partially because of how young Helen was.  I know other sealings were done in secret as well, but her young age was a factor here, IMO.

I see no evidence to support this claim.  CFR - I know it's your opinion, but surely you are basing it on some fact.

There is ample evidence that Joseph's marriages were kept secret due to polygamy.
I have never in all my reading or study come across ANY indication that the age of one of Joseph's wives caused any difference in the way the marriage was viewed.

Quote

Trivial for you, but not for some others.  I admit it's not a big deal for me either (although I do readily admit that I think it's obvious why Helen's age was worded in the manner it was in the essay).   I understand why it was done too and don't believe it's an evil conspiracy.  The writer was just trying to soften or downplay as much as possible that she was only 14 years old, IMO.  

I agree with you on the wording.  I don't agree that her age is a concern.  I don't believe there was a physical relationship between them, they never lived together during his life, and any perceived scandal over a marriage sealing seems misplaced.

Edited November 22, 2017 by JLHPROF

[california boy]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because the Church has a bunch of nitpicking faultfinders who will always, always stand ready to do their self-appointed task to the best of their ability.

Acknowledge hypersensitivity?  Yes.  Indulge and rationalize hypersensitivity?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or because the church has a bunch of members that are fed up with the church running it's history through a sanitized rather than just telling things the way it is.  And here we have the essays that are suppose to be a more frank account of what happened.  What happens.  Same sanitizer filter.  Here is the irony in this Helen was married to Smith in May 1843 when she was 14 and he was 37.  She was 3 months away from her 15th birthday, so the essays state her age as a few months shy of her 15th birthday.  Yet the essays state that Joseph Smith was 37.  He was only a month away from his 38th birthday.  Why didn't the essays state his age as a month away from his 38th birthday?

 Sure it is nitpicky.  But it is like picking at a scab that is already pretty tender.  It is insulting to a lot of people.  And your response to this is to blame the members who clearly are fed up with this kind of nonsense?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I see no evidence to support this claim.  CFR - I know it's your opinion, but surely you are basing it on some fact.

There is ample evidence that Joseph's marriages were kept secret due to polygamy.
I have never in all my reading or study come across ANY indication that the age of one of Joseph's wives caused any difference in the way the marriage was viewed.

I agree with you on the wording.  I don't agree that her age is a concern.  I don't believe there was a physical relationship between them, they never lived together during his life, and any perceived scandal over a marriage sealing seems misplaced.

I think the age is a concern but wouldn't be as much if polygamy weren't involved. Even so, I don't think there were many 14 yr olds marrying 37 yr olds. My guess is that the evidence would show that this age difference was rare if not extremely rare.

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or because the church has a bunch of members that are fed up with the church running it's history through a sanitized rather than just telling things the way it is.  

There is no such thing as "just telling things the they {they are}."  There is always bias.

People like you want to paint the Church in the worst light possible.  The Church generally goes the other way, while also acknowledging mistakes and flaws by members of the Church.  The Gospel Topics Essays are a good example of this.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

And here we have the essays that are suppose to be a more frank account of what happened.  What happens.  Same sanitizer filter.  Here is the irony in this Helen was married to Smith in May 1843 when she was 14 and he was 37.  She was 3 months away from her 15th birthday, so the essays state her age as a few months shy of her 15th birthday.  Yet the essays state that Joseph Smith was 37.  He was only a month away from his 38th birthday.  Why didn't the essays state his age as a month away from his 38th birthday?

This seems like a trivial nitpick.  

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

 Sure it is nitpicky.  

Exceedingly.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

But it is like picking at a scab that is already pretty tender.  

No, it's not.  Attributing malice where none is reasonably warranted is one of the basic reasons people like me seldom give any credence to judgment calls from critics and opponents of the Church.

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is insulting to a lot of people.  And your response to this is to blame the members who clearly are fed up with this kind of nonsense?

My response is to A) keep this nitpick in perspective, rather than blow it out of proportion as you are attempting, and B) not give much credence to critics and opponents of the Church who presume to speak for members of the Church, particularly when doing so is an exercise in fomenting discord and division in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Daniel2]

I haven’t read everything previous in this thread yet, but I am always amazed at the difference between the LDS Church’s approach to doubt as compared to my current Faith’s approach, which is beautifully described in our hymnal (see below). I’ve shared these words before, but they seem appropriate to repeat again in this thread.

In my view, the values of my new Faith (as described below) align better with and dovetail more closely to the treasured Primary values of my youth I recall energetically singing of in “The Wise Man Built His House Upon the Rock” than the approach current LDS apostles seem to me to be advocating:

Quote

CHERISH YOUR DOUBTS

By Robert T Weston

Cherish your doubts, for doubt is the attendant of truth.

Doubt is the key to the door of knowledge; it is the servant of discovery. 

A belief which may not be questioned binds us to error, for there is incompleteness and imperfection in every belief.

Doubt is the touchstone of truth; it is an acid which eats away the false. 

Let no one fear the truth, that doubt may consume it; for doubt is a testing of belief.

The truth stands boldly and unafraid; it is not shaken by the testing: 

For truth, if it be truth, arises from each testing stronger, more secure.

Those that would silence doubt are filled with fear; their houses are built on shifting sands. 

But those who fear not doubt, and know its use, are founded on rock.

They shall walk in the light of growing knowledge; the work of their hands shall endure. 

Therefore let us not fear doubt, but let us rejoice in its help:

It is to be the wise as a staff to the blind; doubt is the attendant of truth.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Daniel2

[Calm]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Before I go searching for a reference for you, I'm curious if you really feel that people in 1840 US were ok with a 36-38 year old male marrying a 14 year old girl?  If you truly think they were ok with it, generally speaking, then I'll see what I can find.  Other than that, I have no idea why i'd waste my time to find a reference.  

The research I have seen shows percentage of age gaps between Joseph and his wives were consistent with age gaps in the greater community.  I believe David Keller was the one who went through census records collecting ages of spouses at time of marriage to make a comparison (he worked with Greg Smith).

The ages weren't much of an issue for that culture.  Otoh, polygamy was a huge cultural taboo...possible bigger than it is today given we have stuff like Big Love and Reality shows with polygamous families.

So yes, serious CFR.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

The research I have seen shows percentage of age gaps between Joseph and his wives were consistent with age gaps in the greater community.  I believe David Keller was the one who went through census records collecting ages of spouses at time of marriage to make a comparison (he worked with Greg Smith).

The ages weren't much of an issue for that culture.  Otoh, polygamy was a huge cultural taboo...possible bigger than it is today given we have stuff like Big Love and Reality shows with polygamous families.

So yes, serious CFR.

Could you also provide the link to the research you've seen that says the gaps weren't unusual for the time and culture. That's not what I've seen so I'm curious to review. Thanks.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is no such thing as "just telling things the [way] {they are}."  There is always bias.

People who do not understand this point are (in the nicest way I know how to put it as one trained in history) part of the problem.

[Calm]

"Any marriages that were large age gaps were often seen as inappropriate by others."

Where wasthis documented and not assumed by you?

[Calm]

"When we study others in Joseph's environment, we find that it was not. A sample of 201 Nauvoo-era civil marriages found that 33.3% were under twenty, with one bride as young as twelve. [4] Another sample of 127 Kirtland marriages found that nearly half (49.6%) were under twenty. [5] And, a computer-aided study of LDS marriages found that from 1835–1845, 42.3% of women were married before age twenty. [6] The only surprising thing about Joseph's one third is that more of his marriage partners were not younger...

Even when the men in Joseph's age range (34–38 years) in the U.S. Census are extracted, Joseph still has a lower percentage of younger wives and more older wives than non-members half a decade later. [8]...

A more useful breakdown by age is found in Table 12-1. Rather than lumping all wives younger than twenty-one together (a third of all the wives), our analysis shows that only a fifth of the wives would be under eighteen. These are the only women at risk of statutory rape issues even in the modern era...

There can be no doubt that the practice of polygamy was deeply offensive to monogamous, Victorian America. As everything from the Nauvoo Expositor to the latest anti-Mormon tract shows, the Saints were continually attacked for their plural marriages.

If we set aside the issue of plurality, however, the only issue which remains is whether it would have been considered bizarre, improper, or scandalous for a man in his mid-thirties to marry a woman in her mid- to late-teens. Clearly, Joseph's marriage to teen-age women was entirely normal for Mormons of his era. The sole remaining question is, were all these teen-age women marrying men their own age, or was marriage to older husbands also considered proper?

To my knowledge, the issue of age disparity was not a charge raised by critics in Joseph's day. It is difficult to prove a negative, but the absence of much comment on this point is probably best explained by the fact that plural marriage was scandalous, but marriages with teenage women were, if not the norm, at least not uncommon enough to occasion comment. For example, to disguise the practice of plural marriage, Joseph had eighteen-year-old Sarah Whitney pretend to marry Joseph Kingsbury, who was days away from thirty-one. [19] If this age gap would have occasioned comment, Joseph Smith would not have used Kingsbury as a decoy.

One hundred and eighty Nauvoo-era civil marriages have husbands and wives with known ages and marriage dates. [20] Chart 12 2 demonstrates that these marriages follow the general pattern of wives being younger than husbands...

When the age of husband is plotted against the age of each wife, it becomes clear that almost all brides younger than twenty married men between five and twenty years older (see Chart 12-3)...

This same pattern appears in 879 marriages from the 1850 U.S. Census (see Chart 12 4). Non-Mormon age differences easily exceeded Joseph's except for age fourteen. We should not make too much of this, since the sample size is very small (one or two cases for Joseph; three for the census) and dynastic motives likely played a large role in Joseph's choice, as discussed above."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Polygamy_book/Age_of_wives

[Calm]

I could have sworn someone used Compton's analysis to present some conclusions, but can't find the reference (not the Kimball conjugal relations or not one).

I came across this in Greg Smith's work I linked to above that probably should be considered if using Compton's conclusions:

"[Compton] lumps everyone between "14 to 20 years old" together. [9] It is not clear why this age range should be chosen—women eighteen or older are adults even by modern standards..

[Calm]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

The question was asked it it was acceptable or if people back then were "okay with it".    I think the secrecy surrounding this sealing was partially because of how young Helen was.  I know other sealings were done in secret as well, but her young age was a factor here, IMO.

This seems a bit of a stretch...if all sealings were extremely secretive, why would an additional factor contributing to that secrecy have to be assumed for one of them?

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Before I go searching for a reference for you, I'm curious if you really feel that people in 1840 US were ok with a 36-38 year old male marrying a 14 year old girl?  If you truly think they were ok with it, generally speaking, then I'll see what I can find.  Other than that, I have no idea why i'd waste my time to find a reference.  

Also, you forgot the part about the 38 year old man already being married, and that his legally married wife didn't know about this latest situation.  I'm thinking most people in 1840 would not be okay with this.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Could you also provide the link to the research you've seen that says the gaps weren't unusual for the time and culture. That's not what I've seen so I'm curious to review. Thanks.

I use the term "consistent" and not common, uncommon, or unusual for a reason.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Also, you forgot the part about the 38 year old man already being married, and that his legally married wife didn't know about this latest situation.  I'm thinking most people in 1840 would not be okay with this.

I am not in the least challenging the cultural rejection of polygamy by the communities surrounding LDS and by many LDS themselves.  Please do not conflate my requests for documentation for claims on ages of wives with documentation on reactions to polygamy.  That is a waste of time, imo.

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Calm

[sunstoned]

5 hours 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.

Some basic research shows this not to be true.  In 1850 the average first time marriage age for males was 26.8 years.  For females is was 23.1 years. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002115/table/T1/

It you take average of the entire 19th century, then:

Quote

Between 1800 and 1900, women generally married for the first time between the ages of 20 and 22. Less is known about the average age of first marriages for men during the 19th century. In 1890, when the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting marriage data, it was recorded that the average age of a first marriage for men was 26 years, and the average age of marriage for women was 22 years.

http://classroom.synonym.com/age-marriage-us-1800s-23174.html

 

 

[Nevo]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

To my knowledge, the issue of age disparity was not a charge raised by critics in Joseph's day. It is difficult to prove a negative, but the absence of much comment on this point is probably best explained by the fact that plural marriage was scandalous, but marriages with teenage women were, if not the norm, at least not uncommon enough to occasion comment.

I don't find this argument from silence very persuasive. I think men in their mid-thirties marrying fourteen-year-old girls probably was "uncommon enough to occasion comment" in the 1830s/40s.

Thomas L. Kane got engaged to his 15-year-old second cousin two days before his 30th birthday, on January 25, 1852. His biographer writes:

"Knowing that her age would raise eyebrows, Thomas at first proposed that he commit to Elizabeth but refuse to receive promises from her until she became older. 'A mere child, utterly unselfish,' Elizabeth deserved the right 'when she is of age to go into Society, then look around her and make the choice which her head and judgment dictate.' To Thomas's relief, his plan persuaded neither Elizabeth nor her father. . . .

Given their age difference, Thomas played a mixed role in Elizabeth's life: mentor, father figure, husband, lover. During their engagement, she signed a letter, 'Your Child-Wife (Oh, don't wait till I am a woman!).'  . . . Resolving to become worthy of her husband, she told him, 'if you will take a Child-Wife, you will have to educate her for a Woman-Wife'" (Matthew J. Grow, "Liberty to the Downtrodden": Thomas L. Kane, Romantic Reformer [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009], 129–131).

Thomas recognized that fifteen-year-old Elizabeth was "a mere child" and not yet "of age." And Elizabeth, for her part, teased that she was his "Child-Wife" (she was sixteen when they married). In their case, at least, the age disparity did not pass without comment.

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not in the least challenging the cultural rejection of polygamy by the communities surrounding LDS and by many LDS themselves.  Please do not conflate my requests for documentation for claims on ages of wives with documentation on reactions to polygamy.  That is a waste of time, imo.

 

I agree this is a waste of time. I didn't bring up the  young marriage defense. Joseph Smith did what he did and there is little to be gained by spinning it.  Please see my following postings that support the position that there is no evidence outside of anecdotal that marriages of 14 year old girls to older men was the norm or was generally accepted. 

[Calm]

"I don't find this argument from silence very persuasive. I think men in their mid-thirties marrying fourteen-year-old girls probably was "uncommon enough to occasion comment" in the 1830s/40s."

It would be useful to have multiple references on this and more from outsiders looking on a relationship than the individuals involved (because individuals tend to be more sensitive about their own relationships than others).

The ones or lack thereof that would work best, imo, would be from the same groups that were attacking Mormons for multiple other reasons.  We could safely assume that they would draw attention to anything they saw as immoral or out of the ordinary.  It would also give a workable limit to demonstrating how strong the argument from silence actually was.  I have not done a survey or remember such a survey for that specific reasons and Greg Smith does not specify how extentsivr his knowledge was in the area.  Studying the census accounts would give numbers, not opinions or lack of opinions.

It seems like it would be something timeconsuming, but relatively easy...something a history student could get into for a thesis.  Makes me wonder if there is something out there.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I agree this is a waste of time. I didn't bring up the  young marriage defense. Joseph Smith did what he did and there is little to be gained by spinning it.  Please see my following postings that support the position that there is no evidence outside of anecdotal that marriages of 14 year old girls to older men was the norm or was generally accepted. 

I do not see you addressing the analysis of the census study by Greg Smith I posted.  Did I miss it?

[Calm]

Withdrawing for the night and possibly the rest of the week.  Should have been sleeping instead of this.  Friday is the last of the early morning ECT runs, but I was quite close this morning at 5 AM to popping over to my niece's house to sleep before driving home because I was so tired.  Just can't get enough sleep on this particular schedule.  Napping all day is my only option right now and getting involved as opposed to making random comments here and there prevents that.

Sorry if I set a conversation up and now leave someone hanging.  Just not thinking clearly at all.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Calm

[sjdawg]

11 hours 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.

 

How common/legal and/or socially acceptable was it for a 14 year old to enter into a polygamous marriage in the 1800's?  There is more wrong with this than just the age of the bride and the age gap.

[sjdawg]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not in the least challenging the cultural rejection of polygamy by the communities surrounding LDS and by many LDS themselves.  Please do not conflate my requests for documentation for claims on ages of wives with documentation on reactions to polygamy.  That is a waste of time, imo.

 

It is more than cultural rejection.  Wasn't polygamy illegal at the time?   

If so, to me that lumps Joseph Smith in more with people like Warren Jeffs than it does with a someone simply marrying a young bride.  I know a lot of people will hate that comparison but it seems to apply with a key difference being whether or not you believe in their specific theology.   Both men polygamously married girls under 15 in contradiction to societal norms and to the law. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by sjdawg