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

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

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. 

Polygamy is against societal norms for both.  Marriageable age norm is far different today than in Joseph's day.  We even frown at 18 year olds getting married.

[sjdawg]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Polygamy is against societal norms for both.  Marriageable age norm is far different today than in Joseph's day.  We even frown at 18 year olds getting married.

I would say it is becoming less common but not particularly rare for an 18 or 19 year old LDS girl to be married.  

[carbon dioxide]

11 hours ago, 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.

Probably not common at all but not unheard of either.  It was not illegal. There is no scripture that puts a minimum age for marriage or maximum age difference between those involved.  My opinion is that for those involved, it was not that big of a deal.  They probably were not thinking about how people 200 years in the future would judge their actions and they probably would not care anyway.  I personally don't make any decision based on how people 150 years from now would judge my decision.  I am sure 150 years from now if people are still around that people in those days will have harsh judgements about decisions people make today that are not a big deal to us.  As a result, when I die and I meet Joseph Smith and his wives, I don't want to be guilty of wrongly judging their actions.  Actions which I have little right to judge being so distant from them and knowing so little on all the internal matters that involved the decisions they made.  I believe a lot of people will be asking Joseph and others for forgiveness by imposing 21st century standards and views on them and making conclusions based on very little information that they had which we do not have.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

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. 

I would not equate the two.  There was no Supreme court ruling on the issue of polygamy in those days.  It may have been illegal but legitimate questions regarding it being illegal existed.  Even today, I don't see how it can be illegal if practiced under First Amendment grounds of religion.  Free exercise of religion means just that.  It does not mean the freedom to just believe something but also the freedom to actually practice what one believes.  As to age issues, there is clear standing in the law about underage marriages today that would affect Warren Jeffs.  No such laws or standards applied in Joseph day.  It was not the norm in society to marry that young BUT it was not unheard of either.  It was not illegal and viewed quite differently than today. 

[rongo]

7 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I would say it is becoming less common but not particularly rare for an 18 or 19 year old LDS girl to be married.  

My wife was 18, and I was 22 when we got married. Her mother wanted her to wait until she was 19 because she didn't want her to be 18 (very arbitrary). We both knew the time was right, though, and arbitrarily waiting for her to be 19 wouldn't have made her more "ready" or mature. 

We are in our 21st year of marriage . . .

[Duncan]

I think we are mixing up things a tad. First of did Joseph Smith marry young women which we can verify or not but I think the question was it right or wrong is where historians would leave alone, as who are we to judge the rightness or wrong of it. Look to the documents and see what was done or not done but I don't know if we can say it was right or wrong. I think we would all agree marrying a teenager is disgusting but then again we didn't live in the 1830's. I wonder what Joseph Smith and everybody who lived then would say about our generation? The Bachelor and Bachelorette?????? 800 Seasons of Survivor??????? The Price Right, spin the big wheel to possibly make more money then I did in one year???? not fair!!

[Tacenda]

Elder Ballard said the church never hides anything in the Face to Face interview, but makes no mention of Joseph F. Smith slicing out three pages with "a strange account of the FV" in a journal and  hid it in his vault in 1930. Then when it was leaked by the Tanners he asked a college student to write a thesis on it and then it was put into a 1970 Improvement Era. https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=36741

It all seems a little hidden to me. Why wasn't it put into the Ensign? The Improvement Era or The New Era is geared towards the youth or young men/young women. The group that won't really think twice about it because of their age. And interestingly enough the seerstone and polygamy are now taught in Seminary, but not in Gospel Doctrine class? Not hiding? Maybe not to the extent he's projecting but it isn't open enough to include it in other avenues with adults reading/listening. 

Also, the hiding of post manifesto polygamy. Apparently it is one of the reasons D. Michael Quinn was ex'd because he brought it out in his book. 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

All these things that are discussed (or not) in the essays..should have come to light many....many years ago...and for heaven's sakes..to be exed or made to leave a church because of truth is so very sad.  Being disfellowshipped..is worse to me that exing or resgnation.  It becomes a product of a different kind of separation that shuns within a congregation.  The thing is...even if you just forget polygamy, there are so many other things that did not see the light..until now.  I love saints..and don't like the way they are treated.  All these huge testimonies that I have heard in the past don't mean anything....because they didn't have the truth.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Jeanne

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Elder Ballard said the church never hides anything in the Face to Face interview, but makes no mention of Joseph F. Smith slicing out a page with "a strange account of the FV" in a journal and  hid it in his vault in 1930. Then when it was leaked by the Tanners he asked a college student to write a thesis on it and then it was put into a 1970 Improvement Era. https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=36741

It all seems a little hidden to me. Why wasn't it put into the Ensign? The Improvement Era or The New Era is geared towards the youth or young men/young women. The group that won't really think twice about it because of their age. And interestingly enough the seerstone and polygamy are now taught in Seminary, but not in Gospel Doctrine class? Not hiding? Maybe not to the extent he's projecting but it isn't open enough to include it in other avenues with adults reading/listening. 

Also, the hiding of post manifesto polygamy. Apparently it is one of the reasons D. Michael Quinn was ex'd because he brought it out in his book. 

I wonder how people, not you by the way!, know what Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's motivation was for putting it in his own vault? and if he or others were really trying to hide it why not just destroy it?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 Also, the hiding of post manifesto polygamy. Apparently it is one of the reasons D. Michael Quinn was ex'd because he brought it out in his book. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Quinn

- Quinn had been summoned to a disciplinary council to answer charges of "conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy," including "'very sensitive and highly confidential' matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings."  Lavina Fielding Anderson has suggested that the "allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable."

[UtahTexan]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Elder Ballard said the church never hides anything in the Face to Face interview, but makes no mention of Joseph F. Smith slicing out three pages with "a strange account of the FV" in a journal and  hid it in his vault in 1930. Then when it was leaked by the Tanners he asked a college student to write a thesis on it and then it was put into a 1970 Improvement Era. https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=36741

It all seems a little hidden to me. Why wasn't it put into the Ensign? The Improvement Era or The New Era is geared towards the youth or young men/young women. The group that won't really think twice about it because of their age. And interestingly enough the seerstone and polygamy are now taught in Seminary, but not in Gospel Doctrine class? Not hiding? Maybe not to the extent he's projecting but it isn't open enough to include it in other avenues with adults reading/listening. 

Also, the hiding of post manifesto polygamy. Apparently it is one of the reasons D. Michael Quinn was ex'd because he brought it out in his book. 

When I was a kid, my mother hid things from me that she did not think I was ready for.  Later, she let me know.  I guess I could call her evil and a liar for doing that.  I just always figured she had her reasons and never held it against her.  After reading this thread, I see how wrong I was.  I Hate my mother now.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

When I was a kid, my mother hid things from me that she did not think I was ready for.  Later, she let me know.  I guess I could call her evil and a liar for doing that.  I just always figured she had her reasons and never held it against her.  After reading this thread, I see how wrong I was.  I Hate my mother now.

I can accept that, but then Elder Ballard should make mention of that instead of saying they don't hide things. Just come out and admit, and give reasons/possible reasons for it.  

[Jeanne]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can accept that, but then Elder Ballard should make mention of that instead of saying they don't hide things. Just come out and admit, and give reasons/possible reasons for it.  

That is all it would take.  Seriously...any acknowledgement could change the world for a lot of people.

[california boy]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

This seems like a trivial nitpick.  

Exceedingly.

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.

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

 

I completely acknowledge that there are two perspectives on this issue.  Those that think it is not slanting things to put the situation in the best possible light.  And those that think this is another in a long list of the church attempting to slant it's history to make issues look a bit less of a problem.  And in doing so, only aggravating what is already a sensitive subject.  Personally I don't really care or think it is that big of deal.  I just find it more insulting than a huge deal.  I think there are way bigger issues in how Joseph Smith went about practicing polygamy than marrying a 14 or just shy by a couple months 15 year old girl.  I find marrying other wives husbands to be a much bigger deal.  I find sneaking around Emma's back to be more problematic.

But I think you are missing the point I, and others are trying to make.  This issue about calling a 14 year old a almost 15 year old is clearly an issue for some people.  And also completely unneccesary.  The church did this to themselves in the way they wrote the essay.  If they would have just been more straightforward about what happened, I think people would have actually been less upset about the marriage.  As others have pointed out, 14 year olds occasionally did marry back them.  So why the heck did the church make a small issue into an even bigger issue that is only further getting those that feel the church is not forthright about it's history irritated?  The rational that some have used saying it is more accurate is just a ridiculous position and only aggravates the situation.  As I pointed out, they didn't "more accurately" report Joseph Smith's age as being just a month short of his 33rd birthday. 

Do you see my point or not?

[Duncan]

Elder Ballard does mention the first Vision in the F2F event, he talks about the James B. Allen article, the Joseph Smith papers, we are learning more. "We are as transparent as we know how to be"

[california boy]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

My wife was 18, and I was 22 when we got married. Her mother wanted her to wait until she was 19 because she didn't want her to be 18 (very arbitrary). We both knew the time was right, though, and arbitrarily waiting for her to be 19 wouldn't have made her more "ready" or mature. 

We are in our 21st year of marriage . . .

People usually want 18 year olds to wait a little bit before marriage but often feel it is more a decision of the person getting married.  I had a daughter that wanted to marry at 18.  I did everything I could to persuade her to wait a little bit.  But I was also completely ok with her decision.  It is her life, not mine and I told her that very thing.

Now if that same nice 18 year old boy wanted to marry my 14 year old daughter, I would have freaked out and done every legal thing I could possibly do to stop the marriage.  If that 18 year old boy. had been a 38 year old married man wanting to marry my 14 year old daughter, I would have probably done something that I would regret doing.  

[UtahTexan]

19 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I can accept that, but then Elder Ballard should make mention of that instead of saying they don't hide things. Just come out and admit, and give reasons/possible reasons for it.  

Withholding and hiding are two different things.  

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Withholding and hiding are two different things.  

What would be your definition of hiding be?

[UtahTexan]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

What would be your definition of hiding be?

Since I do not believe it was "hidden" I will tell you my definition of withhold "To refrain from giving or granting" and "To keep in check"

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Since I do not believe it was "hidden" I will tell you my definition of withhold "To refrain from giving or granting" and "To keep in check"

Here is the definition of hide from dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), hid, hidden or hid, hiding.

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:

Where did she hide her jewels?

2. to obstruct the view of; cover up:

The sun was hidden by the clouds.

3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret:

to hide one's feelings.

 

I don't see how that is different from your definition of withhold.  It seems to me that "to refrain from giving or granting" is the same thing as "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered."  In both cases the information is not allowed to be out in the open.  Perhaps "withhold" sounds better than "hide?"  Is this why you prefer "withhold" to "hide?"

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Here is the definition of hide from dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), hid, hidden or hid, hiding.

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:

Where did she hide her jewels?

2. to obstruct the view of; cover up:

The sun was hidden by the clouds.

3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret:

to hide one's feelings.

 

I don't see how that is different from your definition of withhold.  It seems to me that "to refrain from giving or granting" is the same thing as "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered."  In both cases the information is not allowed to be out in the open.  Perhaps "withhold" sounds better than "hide?"  Is this why you prefer "withhold" to "hide?"

implied though in hiding something is deliberately hiding something  which is I asked how do we know that Pres. Smith deliberately hid that document? maybe he put it in their for safekeeping and forgot about it

[UtahTexan]

9 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Here is the definition of hide from dictionary.com:

verb (used with object), hid, hidden or hid, hiding.

1. to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered:

Where did she hide her jewels?

2. to obstruct the view of; cover up:

The sun was hidden by the clouds.

3. to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret:

to hide one's feelings.

 

I don't see how that is different from your definition of withhold.  It seems to me that "to refrain from giving or granting" is the same thing as "to conceal from sight; prevent from being seen or discovered."  In both cases the information is not allowed to be out in the open.  Perhaps "withhold" sounds better than "hide?"  Is this why you prefer "withhold" to "hide?"

Shrugs....I can withhold something from you without hiding it.  In fact, in Court, the judge often withholds evidence from the jury, but the evidence is far from hidden.   

Edited November 23, 2017 by UtahTexan

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 minutes ago, UtahTexan said:

Shrugs....I can withhold something from you without hiding it.  In fact, in Court, the judge often withholds evidence from the jury, but the evidence is far from hidden.   

But if a motion in limine is granted, the jury or judge acts as if the evidence is hidden from view, right?  This evidence that is withheld is also hidden from view of the fact finder as it were because it cannot be used in decision making.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

implied though in hiding something is deliberately hiding something  which is I asked how do we know that Pres. Smith deliberately hid that document? maybe he put it in their for safekeeping and forgot about it

If something is locked away in a vault, can it be said that it was mistakenly put there?  The page(s) was deliberately excised from the diary, no?  Then the excised page(s) was put into the vault.  This sounds like it was deliberate and with intent to me.

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

implied though in hiding something is deliberately hiding something  which is I asked how do we know that Pres. Smith deliberately hid that document? maybe he put it in their for safekeeping and forgot about it

You should be working for the church.  Your spin on things is masterful.  Ripping pages out of a journal and putting in a vault means that he was keeping it safe.  And then perhaps one of the most important bits of Mormon history was just forgotten about.  Yeah.  Let's go with that.  People can't possibly distrust that answer.  And if anyone does, we will just call them anti Mormon or nitpicky.