JulieM Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: How common was it for a man in his late thirties to marry a 14 year old? Serious question. Exactly! And one who already had a legal wife and dozens of other wives? I wonder the age difference between stargazer’s Dad and step Mom?
smac97 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Posted August 29, 2018 13 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Those who own a copy of the comic with the now-deleted item will own a collector's edition! Might be worth real money after many years! Depending upon how many got printed that is. Funny you should mention that. I just got back from the local comic book store. I purchased the last two copies. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 1 minute ago, smac97 said: Funny you should mention that. I just got back from the local comic book store. I purchased the last two copies. Smart man.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 6 minutes ago, JulieM said: It’s already been mentioned that it’s not just that at least one of his wives was as young as 14 years old (like your step Mom was). It’s that he was already legally married to one woman and married to dozens polygamously. If the 14 year old was his only wife (his legal one as I’m assuming was the case with your Dad and step Mom), it would raise a few eyebrows but would be accepted and most would just move on. And, that he married other teenage girls as well is part of it too. It’s all the details combined, not just that he was married to one girl legally who was 14. So it’s not real comparable to what your Dad did, IMO. Not to mention the emotional manipulation in the proposal (eternal salvation for Helen and her family). 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 (edited) Duplicate Edited August 29, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding
Stargazer Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: How common was it for a man in his late thirties to marry a 14 year old? Serious question. Don't know. Probably not very common. I believe that at one time men frequently delayed marriage until they could support a family. Which sometimes wasn't until they were at least approaching 30. And by that time most women closer in age to them were already married, thus requiring them to seek younger brides. My late wife's parents were 30 and 20 when married. Because he attained marriagable age in the midst of the Great Depression in Germany. Social norms there at the time made him ineligible to marry because he didn't yet have a profession to support a wife. One of my great great grandfathers was 37 when he got married in 1859. His wife may have been as young as 14 - we're not sure because she was Indian and her birth year was not recorded. It might have been as early as 1840, but as late as 1845. I suspect that Biblical Jacob's concubine Bilhah was considerably younger than he when Rachel gave her to him. Likewise Abraham would have been much older than Sarah's Hagar. The point I'm trying to make is that Helen Kimball's age is being used as a titillation factor when while the age difference and her relative youth is scandalous in our "enlightened" society, elsewhere and elsewhen it may not have been scandalous at all.
jkwilliams Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 Just now, Stargazer said: Don't know. Probably not very common. I believe that at one time men frequently delayed marriage until they could support a family. Which sometimes wasn't until they were at least approaching 30. And by that time most women closer in age to them were already married, thus requiring them to seek younger brides. My late wife's parents were 30 and 20 when married. Because he attained marriagable age in the midst of the Great Depression in Germany. Social norms there at the time made him ineligible to marry because he didn't yet have a profession to support a wife. One of my great great grandfathers was 37 when he got married in 1859. His wife may have been as young as 14 - we're not sure because she was Indian and her birth year was not recorded. It might have been as early as 1840, but as late as 1845. I suspect that Biblical Jacob's concubine Bilhah was considerably younger than he when Rachel gave her to him. Likewise Abraham would have been much older than Sarah's Hagar. The point I'm trying to make is that Helen Kimball's age is being used as a titillation factor when while the age difference and her relative youth is scandalous in our "enlightened" society, elsewhere and elsewhen it may not have been scandalous at all. Well, to me it’s of a piece with the rest of an unsavory pattern. 1
Gray Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 27 minutes ago, smac97 said: Funny you should mention that. I just got back from the local comic book store. I purchased the last two copies. Keep those poly-bagged. Enjoy your retirement. 😛
smac97 Posted August 29, 2018 Author Posted August 29, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Gray said: Keep those poly-bagged. Enjoy your retirement. 😛 Actually, I thought I might be able to get them signed by the artist, as he lives in Utah. Then I could sell them. Then I could put the proceeds towards one of my children's mission. The artist does not seem to be hostile toward us. I wonder if he'll be willing to go along with it. Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 29, 2018 Posted August 29, 2018 2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: i don't think they experience that. I don't think so either. The logical leap from daily experiencing the reality of the Restored Gospel to apostasy is just too great, in my estimation. (The exception would perhaps be the genuinely rebellious?) Quote i wish we all did Same. I suspect the prophets would agree ... and that much of what they are doing to teach and guide us is designed with this outcome in mind. In our stake, we have now been taught the same thing by both Elder Bednar and our former area president (a member of the Seventy): those who are fully engaged in the work of salvation enjoy lives where the reality of the Restoration is impossible to ignore, making them immune to attacks on their faith. This always reminds me of the prophet Jacob's experience with Sherem: Quote And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me. And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken. 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I don't think so either. The logical leap from daily experiencing the reality of the Restored Gospel to apostasy is just too great, in my estimation. (The exception would perhaps be the genuinely rebellious?) Same. I suspect the prophets would agree ... and that much of what they are doing to teach and guide us is designed with this outcome in mind. In our stake, we have now been taught the same thing by both Elder Bednar and our former area president (a member of the Seventy): those who are fully engaged in the work of salvation enjoy lives where the reality of the Restoration is impossible to ignore, making them immune to attacks on their faith. This always reminds me of the prophet Jacob's experience with Sherem: What has Elder Bednar said to you? Perhaps we should start a new thread on the matter.
Stargazer Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, JulieM said: It’s already been mentioned that it’s not just that at least one of his wives was as young as 14 years old (like your step Mom was). It’s that he was already legally married to one woman and married to dozens polygamously. If the 14 year old was his only wife (his legal one as I’m assuming was the case with your Dad and step Mom), it would raise a few eyebrows but would be accepted and most would just move on. And, that he married other teenage girls as well is part of it too. It’s all the details combined, not just that he was married to one girl legally who was 14. So it’s not real comparable to what your Dad did, IMO. Not my Dad. My stepmom and her first husband. And I disagree. If it's ok for a 14 year old girl to marry, her age is then immaterial, regardless of who her husband is. Bringing her age into the equation is sensationalism, pure and simple.
Stargazer Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Well, to me it’s of a piece with the rest of an unsavory pattern. You're entitled to your feelings on the matter, of course.
Stargazer Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 1 hour ago, JulieM said: I wonder the age difference between stargazer’s Dad and step Mom? Wonder no more! My stepmom was 14 when she married her first husband, who was 21. I must regretfully tell you that I had written the above, along with an hour and a half's worth of additional brilliant verbiage when the battery on my tablet went to 0% and I lost it all. So you are deprived of some darned good argumentation! I hope this isn't too disappointing! 😆 I may attempt to reproduce my brilliance later, but don't hold your breath. Writing on this tablet is a real chore (my laptop is in for repair).
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: What has Elder Bednar said to you? Perhaps we should start a new thread on the matter. Happy to shut up if someone tells me I'm derailing. I mentioned our training with Elder Bednar in a post earlier in this thread. It was three years ago. I don't have my notes in front of me since I'm at work, but he basically said that the only Saints who would survive this period of the world's history are those who are fully engaged in the work of salvation, specifically because this is how we daily obtain the blessings of personal revelation, priesthood power, etc. In other words, those who do the work know it's true ... because it works. This has certainly been my experience. Edited to point out what I think is the relevance: The 'solution' to things like the CES Letter is never going to be answering the questions. It's worse than a hydra, by design. Every single reasonable response will be met with, 'But what about this?', ad nauseum et ad infinitum. The solution has to be a life of devotion to restored and revealed principles. The Saviour repeatedly faced similar rhetorical gotcha mobs in the form of the Pharisees. His response: 'If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself'. Nothing has changed. As the Pharisees tried to do with the man born blind, we can argue that something can't possibly be true for x, y and z reasons, but this is all so much 'sound and fury, signifying nothing' to the man who knows that whereas he was blind, now he sees. Edited August 30, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan 2
Stargazer Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: ...those who are fully engaged in the work of salvation enjoy lives where the reality of the Restoration is impossible to ignore, making them immune to attacks on their faith. That may be, and I tend to count myself among the strong in testimony, but there are a few here among us who once felt the same, but do not any longer. No matter who you are: don't get complacent.
Hamba Tuhan Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 7 minutes ago, Stargazer said: There are a few here among us who once felt the same, but do not any longer. No matter who you are: don't get complacent. Absolutely. 'Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall'. This is specifically why we have to be engaged daily. As one of my former housemates used to say, the most important revelation is the one we got yesterday. Active Saints who are going through the motions without enjoying any of the intended blessings or power are, we have been told here, just waiting to leave the Church. Elder Bednar, in answer to a question from an elders quorum president who asked what he should say to his quorum members who refused to get out and minister to their assigned families, said, 'Tell them the truth. Whether in two years' time or twenty, they are making the choice today to fall away at some point'. If my memory serves, this immediately preceded his statement about who would survive the current and coming challenges. 1
Stargazer Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Again, it comes back to this: if it's so crude and pasted together and poorly reasoned, why has it had such an impact? Are church members just really stupid to fall for something as ham-fisted as that? I occasionally see Facebook friends sharing graphic memes that are patent baloney. They are frequently poorly written, poorly reasoned, and incredibly stupid, as well as sensational. Yet they share them because they believe them. Are they stupid to believe some of these things? Have you ever believed something you found not to be true? Of course you have. Does this make you stupid? Of course not. We are all capable of being deceived. None of us is immune. So beware lest you are deceived -- and beware lest you believe yourself deceived when you are not.
sunstoned Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 11 hours ago, smac97 said: I'm wondering if you have read Jim Bennett's fisking of the letter. Not perfect, but definitely worth a read, IMO. As regarding Mr. Runnells, I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series. A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey. Here's a character summary: Shift's scheme is summed up this way: The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme. They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further: The heroes of the story respond this way: "By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger." That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells. As Robert previously put it: "Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive." Yep. Thanks, -Smac More ad hominems attacks. Classy.
Avatar4321 Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 This is the only place a discussion on Spider-Man would lead to plural marriage
sunstoned Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 4 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Well, to me it’s of a piece with the rest of an unsavory pattern. In 1840, the "Average Age at First Marriage" for women is estimated to be between 21 and 22 years of age. In 1950, the "Average Age at First Marriage" dipped to about 20 years of age. By 2005, the "Average Age at First Marriage" had risen to about 25 years of age. Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, Table MS-2, "Estimated Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present"Smith, D.S. - 1993. "American Family and Demographic Patterns and the Northwest European Model", Continuity and Change 8(December):389-415 1
Damien the Leper Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 On 8/27/2018 at 9:06 PM, smac97 said: Here: Do you see it? Not sure the CES letter is at all aptly described as an "honest quest." 🤨 -Smac Rather petulant, IMNSHO.
carbon dioxide Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 5 hours ago, jkwilliams said: How common was it for a man in his late thirties to marry a 14 year old? Serious question. How common was it for a man to have more than one wife? I would say pretty rare but probably less rare to marry a 16 or 17 year old. Was it illegal? No. Was it against any scriptural standard? No. It is not that Joseph did anything wrong as much as people just are not comfortable with it at the very least. More likely people are grossed out by it due to modern standards of things.
carbon dioxide Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 28 minutes ago, sunstoned said: In 1840, the "Average Age at First Marriage" for women is estimated to be between 21 and 22 years of age. In 1950, the "Average Age at First Marriage" dipped to about 20 years of age. By 2005, the "Average Age at First Marriage" had risen to about 25 years of age. Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, Table MS-2, "Estimated Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present"Smith, D.S. - 1993. "American Family and Demographic Patterns and the Northwest European Model", Continuity and Change 8(December):389-415 The most important word in that statistic is "average". Of course the average age would not be 16 as that would assume that some people married when they were 10 or 12. If the average age is 22, then some people marry well above that age and some people marry well below that age including teenagers like 15 or 16. Perhaps a few 14 year old people in that grouping as well.
jkwilliams Posted August 30, 2018 Posted August 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: How common was it for a man to have more than one wife? I would say pretty rare but probably less rare to marry a 16 or 17 year old. Was it illegal? No. Was it against any scriptural standard? No. It is not that Joseph did anything wrong as much as people just are not comfortable with it at the very least. More likely people are grossed out by it due to modern standards of things. I didn’t realize it was scriptural to sleep with other women behind your wife’s back.
Recommended Posts