Latest Story About a "Mormon" Abusing Children

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

 

Then he should have openly married them if it wasn’t illegal like u say. 
 

since he chose not to be legally married to anyone but Emma, he would be guilty of adultery and/ or fornication with any women he had sex with or likely even stayed overnight with.

It wasn’t socially acceptable, but it wasn’t illegal until 1882.

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, webbles said:

Was it common for a 17 year old to marry?  No, less than 2% in the US appear to be married like that in the 1800s.  Was it common for a 17 year old to marry a much older man?  No.  But I don't think it was a thing that would cause an issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_child_brides is a pretty long list of woman under the age of 18 who married.  It includes marriages to those that were similar in age as well as to those much, much older.  That list is only for famous people who have a wiki article so it is not the full list.

Here's a few of them:

1829 - Prince William of Prussia (32) married to 17 year old

1846 - James Duff, 5th Earl Fife (31) married to 16 year old

1851 - Duke of Nassau (33) married to 17 year old

1859 - Napoleone-Jerome Bonaparte (36) married to 15 year old

1837 - Edgar Allen Poe (27) married to 13 year old

One of these days, I'll figure out how to find all the marriages under 18 in familysearch and then have a bigger list, maybe even family stories so we can see how happy the wife was (I have an ancestor's sister who married at 14 to a 61 year old man and it was not a happy marriage).  Based on the 1880 census, there would be over 40,000 women who married under the age of 18 to men above 30.

Grover Cleveland’s wife was 27 years younger than him and he was elected president in 1885. John Taylor’s wife was 30 years younger than him and He was elected president in 1841.

Clearly the US residents didn’t find those age differences scandalous. 

[Diamondhands69]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It wasn’t socially acceptable, but it wasn’t illegal until 1882.

Ok let’s see… 

polygamy not illegal- check

35 yr old men marrying teen girls— normal and totally acceptable -check

Why all the controversy, secret marriages. Lying, missionaries overseas lying about polygamy etc? 
 

if it’s all kosher why go to all the effort to create a scandal?? 
 

ohhh yea… Emma wasn’t cool with JS shacking up with a bunch of other women, girls and other mens wives. No wonder the revelation didn’t come till after he got caught. 
 

Still doesn’t explain why the big secret if it’s all legal and acceptable behavior. 

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

John Taylor’s . 

Typo?  Autocorrect? Tyler…

[Diamondhands69]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Grover Cleveland’s wife was 27 years younger than him and he was elected president in 1885. John Taylor’s wife was 30 years younger than him and He was elected president in 1841.

Clearly the US residents didn’t find those age differences scandalous. 

May want to check your math on Tyler. He was. Born in 1790 and so was his wife leticia

mormon prophet John Taylor was probably married to a couple teenagers. I’m not for sure but I’d bet ten bucks we was .. to at least one

[webbles]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Grover Cleveland’s wife was 27 years younger than him and he was elected president in 1885. John Taylor’s wife was 30 years younger than him and He was elected president in 1841.

Clearly the US residents didn’t find those age differences scandalous. 

Grover Cleveland was also an unofficial guardian of his wife before their marriage.  He knew her when she was an infant and was a friend of her father.  She was 11 when her father died and Cleveland became the executor of the estate.  He helped her through her teenage years.

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

May want to check your math on Tyler. He was. Born in 1790 and so was his wife leticia

mormon prophet John Taylor was probably married to a couple teenagers. I’m not for sure but I’d bet ten bucks we was .. to at least one

John Tyler married 2 woman.  The second woman, Julia Gardiner, was born in 1820 and John Tyler was born in 1790.  30 year age difference.  She was 24 when she married him.

John Taylor had 16 wives (per familysearch) or 8 wives (per wikipedia).  Ages of the plural wives (per familysearch) are: 32, 31, 19, 25, 39, 20, 45, 56, 40, 28, 22, 31, 39, 19, and 26.

[Diamondhands69]

7 minutes ago, webbles said:

Grover Cleveland was also an unofficial guardian of his wife before their marriage.  He knew her when she was an infant and was a friend of her father.  She was 11 when her father died and Cleveland became the executor of the estate.  He helped her through her teenage years.

Ok. So she was 22 when they were married. That is significantly different than 14,15,16 etc 

 

[webbles]

1 minute ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Ok. So she was 22 when they were married. That is significantly different than 14,15,16 etc 

 

You could also say he groomed her.  He bought her a baby carriage.  He was in charge of her finances from the age of 11.  In modern times, I think that type of marriage would be shocking.  It is almost like a step-father marrying his step-daughter.  That's the problem with comparing marriages today to marriages back then.  What shocks us is not the same as what shocked them.

[Diamondhands69]

14 minutes ago, webbles said:

John Tyler married 2 woman.  The second woman, Julia Gardiner, was born in 1820 and John Tyler was born in 1790.  30 year age difference.  She was 24 when she married him.

John Taylor had 16 wives (per familysearch) or 8 wives (per wikipedia).  Ages of the plural wives (per familysearch) are: 32, 31, 19, 25, 39, 20, 45, 56, 40, 28, 22, 31, 39, 19, and 26.

So our two esteemed presidents were not marrying teenagers. Our prophets were.

this infographic is pretty good:

 

[webbles]

9 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

So our two esteemed presidents were not marrying teenagers. Our prophets were.

this infographic is pretty good:

 

 

Eh, the infographic is just sensational.  I don't find it all that useful.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

You could also say he groomed her.  He bought her a baby carriage.  He was in charge of her finances from the age of 11.  In modern times, I think that type of marriage would be shocking.  It is almost like a step-father marrying his step-daughter.  That's the problem with comparing marriages today to marriages back then.  What shocks us is not the same as what shocked them.

You would be surprised how many romance novels have an older guardian as the love interest, the guardian-ward trope.  You can google it. (I went through a year of romance novels when a teen as comfort, read like 2 or 3 a week, they were like potato chips, not long and I was a very fast reader).

Then there is Daddy Long Legs, which was a big movie in 1955.  Leslie Caron is more than 30 years younger than Fred Astaire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daddy_Long_Legs_(1955_film)

Quote

Wealthy American Jervis Pendleton III has a chance encounter at a French orphanage with cheerful 18-year-old resident Julie André. He anonymously pays for her education at a New England college. She writes letters to her mysterious benefactor, whom she calls Daddy Long Legs (based on her fellow orphans' description of his shadow), but he never writes back. Several years later, he visits her at school, still concealing his identity. Despite their wide age difference, they fall in love

 

Edited October 29, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Ok let’s see… 

polygamy not illegal- check

35 yr old men marrying teen girls— normal and totally acceptable -check

Why all the controversy, secret marriages. Lying, missionaries overseas lying about polygamy etc? 
 

if it’s all kosher why go to all the effort to create a scandal?? 
 

ohhh yea… Emma wasn’t cool with JS shacking up with a bunch of other women, girls and other mens wives. No wonder the revelation didn’t come till after he got caught. 
 

Still doesn’t explain why the big secret if it’s all legal and acceptable behavior. 

 

I don't have it now, but there was an old article back in the days that missionaries were baptizing women and promising better lives in Utah, and they would come here and get married off in polygamy. And someone that shared this thought it was a lot like human trafficking. If I had the article, maybe it would read like that. 

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't have it now, but there was an old article back in the days that missionaries were baptizing women and promising better lives in Utah, and they would come here and get married off in polygamy. And someone that shared this thought it was a lot like human trafficking. If I had the article, maybe it would read like that. 

I have a gggfather from the time period of John Taylor who was a polygamist and a missionary overseas. He, just like future prophet John Taylor lied to investigators about the church’s participation in polygamy. 
 

he had three wives and swore up and down Mormons do not believe in or practice polygamy. Real cute. 

 

 

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I have a gggfather from the time period of John Taylor who was a polygamist and a missionary overseas. He, just like future prophet John Taylor lied to investigators about the church’s participation in polygamy. 
 

he had three wives and swore up and down Mormons do not believe in or practice polygamy. Real cute. 

 

 

What evidence do you have that your "gggfather" specifically did what you say?  

[Diamondhands69]

Just now, InCognitus said:

What evidence do you have that your "gggfather" specifically did what you say?  

Journal entries, family hand me down stories and he served in same mission time period as John Taylor.  It was church policy btw so what’s to question? 
 

“What is mainly remembered about this publication is Taylor’s strong denial that the Saints were practicing plural marriage, at least the kind that John C. Bennett had suggested in his 1842 exposé, The History of the Saints; or, an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism, and was finding its way into anti-Mormon activities and publications in Europe.[38] Such broad denials of polygamy were common until August 29, 1852, when Brigham Young approved the public announcement as part of a special missionary conference in Salt Lake City.[39] Once Brigham Young approved the public discussion, John Taylor became a strong public defender of the practice; in fact, Taylor’s later assignment to publish the Mormon in New York City was to defend the Church against the public attacks that were sure to increase.”

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/champion-liberty-john-taylor/john-taylor-mormon-imprints-europe-1840-52

and here is an excerpt (lie) the pamphlet John Taylor was distributing. 
 

“We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore leaving the sisters of the "White Veil," the "Black Veil," and all the other veils, with those gentlemen to dispose of, together with their authors, as they think best, I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330. 

"1. According to the custom of all civilised nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, should be solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for that purpose; and that the solemnization should be performed by a presiding High Priest, High Priest, Bishop, Elder, or Priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this church from marrying out of the church, if it be their determination so to do, but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 

"2. Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names, "You both mutually agree to be each other's companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping ourselves wholly for each other, and from all others during your lives." And when they shall have answered "Yes," he shall pronounce them husband and wife, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country, and authority vested in him. 'May God add his blessing, and keep you to fulfil your covenant from henceforth, and for ever. Amen.' 

"3. The Clerk of every Church should keep a record of the marriages solemnized in his branch. 

"4. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband. All children are bound by law to obey their parents; and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents, and masters, who exercise control over their wives, children, and servants, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin." 

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1850Tayl.htm
 

keep in mind at the publishing date of this pamphlet (1850)John Taylor was handing out, he was married to about 13 women. Some may have died prior to 1850, but he was clearly a polygamist and a liar. 

 

 

[InCognitus]

7 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Journal entries, family hand me down stories and he served in same mission time period as John Taylor.  It was church policy btw so what’s to question? 

NOT what I asked you.  I asked specifically about YOUR "gggfather", not John Taylor.  What evidence do you have that your "gggfather" specifically "lied to investigators about the church’s participation in polygamy"?    Just family stories?  Or if you have journal entries, would you please post a photograph of where or how he described lying to investigators about polygamy?

Edited October 29, 2023 by InCognitus

[webbles]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't have it now, but there was an old article back in the days that missionaries were baptizing women and promising better lives in Utah, and they would come here and get married off in polygamy. And someone that shared this thought it was a lot like human trafficking. If I had the article, maybe it would read like that. 

How far back in the day?  This was a pretty common accusation during the polygamy years and shortly afterwards and is brought up every now and then.

[Diamondhands69]

24 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

NOT what I asked you.  I asked specifically about YOUR "gggfather", not John Taylor.  What evidence do you have that your "gggfather" specifically "lied to investigators about the church’s participation in polygamy"?    Just family stories?  Or if you have journal entries, would you please post a photograph of where or how he described lying to investigators about polygamy?

lol you see how I am here on this forum I am the same with my family. You believe they entrust me with that dudes journal? My family is super hard line TBM. I’m like satan to them. There are easily a couple thousand of us with all the polygamists we had in both sides. I wouldn’t even know where to start to even look at the journal. It’s probably in the custody of the church would be my bet. My family was instrumental in the church from the get go on both sides and stayed heavily involved for some time after I graduated high school. We had apostles stop by to visit my father on a routine basis due to my fathers calling at the regional level. That doesn’t prove anything but we (they ) are connected enough I’m sure that thing along with other journals are owned by the church now. I’ll trust my families stories. Why would they brag on him lying on his mission anyway? Because they felt it was the right thing to do. 
 

They would never let me get my hands on it. 
 

what does it matter anyway? I see you didn’t contest Brigham young’s policy of the missionaries lying about polygamy. My gggfather was an obedient missionary. Enough said. It was church policy so it doesn’t matter what I can prove my gggfather  documented. 

 

 

 

 

 

[InCognitus]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

I see what you are saying and yes, I do think that JS probably sought an opportunity to speak with many of these women face to face.

Thanks for sharing this.  It's an amazing story.

I think it's also interesting how Lucy Walker explained how she gained a testimony of plural marriage and the reason she understood that it was practiced.  Lucy Walker spoke at an event at the "Sixteenth ward Assembly hall" in Salt Lake city in 1899, and part of what she said about plural marriage at that event was published in the Salt Lake Tribune, 12/24/1899, page 4:

"Lucy Walker Smith was introduced as one of the wives of the prophet.  She testified to his great moral worth, of him as a man, and how loth she was to enter into polygamy, and that she did not do so until she had prayed long and fervently that if polygamy were true that she should be given a knowledge.  That knowledge she subsequently obtained, and it was then that she consented to marry the prophet.  One night when she was praying in her room, it suddenly became as light as day, and it was then that she was given the testimony.  After the death of Joseph Smith, she became the wife of Heber C. Kimball.  Emma Smith, the wife of the prophet, was a good woman, but she too had made mistakes at times.  Men did not take polygamous wives because they loved them or fancied them or because they were voluptuous, but because it was a command of God."

[InCognitus]

5 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

lol you see how I am here on this forum I am the same with my family. You believe they entrust me with that dudes journal? My family is super hard line TBM. I’m like satan to them. There are easily a couple thousand of us with all the polygamists we had in both sides. I wouldn’t even know where to start to even look at the journal. It’s probably in the custody of the church would be my bet. My family was instrumental in the church from the get go on both sides and stayed heavily involved for some time after I graduated high school. We had apostles stop by to visit my father on a routine basis due to my fathers calling at the regional level. That doesn’t prove anything but we (they ) are connected enough I’m sure that thing along with other journals are owned by the church now. I’ll trust my families stories. Why would they brag on him lying on his mission anyway? Because they felt it was the right thing to do. 
 

They would never let me get my hands on it. 
 

what does it matter anyway? I see you didn’t contest Brigham young’s policy of the missionaries lying about polygamy. My gggfather was an obedient missionary. Enough said. It was church policy so it doesn’t matter what I can prove my gggfather  documented. 

So you really don't have any evidence of what your "gggfather" actually said?  It's all hearsay?  

You made a claim that your "gggfather" specifically "lied to investigators about the church’s participation in polygamy".  Above you shrug it off as "what does it matter"?  It matters where you get your information and if it's accurate.   I'm trying to find out how a person writes in a journal, "I had to lie about polygamy today".  

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, webbles said:

How far back in the day?  This was a pretty common accusation during the polygamy years and shortly afterwards and is brought up every now and then.

I wish I could find it but saw research papers come up and they didn't find much on it as well. It was such a short article, stating that women were trafficked to Utah after missionaries baptized them and not knowing about polygamy. It was an old article, either in the late 1800's early 1900's by the way it looked. So in my memory it actually said trafficked even back in those days, in the article. Hopefully I will find it, but then again it could be an anti person that made it up out of anger perhaps.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Tacenda

[Diamondhands69]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

So you really don't have any evidence of what your "gggfather" actually said?  It's all hearsay?  

You made a claim that your "gggfather" specifically "lied to investigators about the church’s participation in polygamy".  Above you shrug it off as "what does it matter"?  It matters where you get your information and if it's accurate.   I'm trying to find out how a person writes in a journal, "I had to lie about polygamy today".  

I find it odd you challenge the truth of my relative lying about polygamy on his mission when the church admits that is what happened.

What’s so hard to believe? John Taylor published a flyer on it. It was church policy. Everyone in Utah was lying about it to keep from going to prison. 
 

idga flip if you don’t believe me. The evidence they lied to investigators is a matter of record at byu (source provided) as they specifically pointed out brigham young’s policy. BYU is the church. Disprove them and then come after me. 
 

Are you afraid to criticize the church? 
 

 

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

I find it odd you challenge the truth of my relative lying about polygamy on his mission when the church admits that is what happened.

What’s so hard to believe? John Taylor published a flyer on it. It was church policy. Everyone in Utah was lying about it to keep from going to prison. 
 

idga flip if you don’t believe me. The evidence they lied to investigators is a matter of record at byu (source provided) as they specifically pointed out brigham young’s policy. BYU is the church. Disprove them and then come after me. 
 

Are you afraid to criticize the church? 
 

 

Do you know which period he lied in?  Because there were multiple periods and they appear to have different reasons to lie in each period.

1. Nauvoo period till some time after Joseph Smith died - polygamy was hidden from everyone except for a select few
2. Early Utah period until 1852 - polygamy was not hidden from members in Utah but was lied about outside of Utah
3. Polygamy persecution period from 1862/1879 to 1890 - Federal government tries to stop polygamy and many polygamists go into hidding
4. Between 1890 and 1904 - new polygamous marriages are hidden from most people
5. After 1904 - new polygamous marriages involve excommunication

John Taylor's pamphlet was published in 1850 so it is in the second group.  I've never quite understood the reasons for lying during that time period.  Polygamy was openly practiced in Utah so any visitor to Utah would have been able to see it and publish about it.  But members would deny it outside of Utah.  If your relative was lying during that period, I'd love to know if the stories give any reason for him?

[Diamondhands69]

16 minutes ago, webbles said:

Do you know which period he lied in?  Because there were multiple periods and they appear to have different reasons to lie in each period.

1. Nauvoo period till some time after Joseph Smith died - polygamy was hidden from everyone except for a select few
2. Early Utah period until 1852 - polygamy was not hidden from members in Utah but was lied about outside of Utah
3. Polygamy persecution period from 1862/1879 to 1890 - Federal government tries to stop polygamy and many polygamists go into hidding
4. Between 1890 and 1904 - new polygamous marriages are hidden from most people
5. After 1904 - new polygamous marriages involve excommunication

John Taylor's pamphlet was published in 1850 so it is in the second group.  I've never quite understood the reasons for lying during that time period.  Polygamy was openly practiced in Utah so any visitor to Utah would have been able to see it and publish about it.  But members would deny it outside of Utah.  If your relative was lying during that period, I'd love to know if the stories give any reason for him?

Served in England 2x. Once in 1842/43 and next in 1850. He was a polygamist going back before JS died. 
 

Polygamy was not publicly acknowledged by the church until 1852. Up to that time, church leaders lied about it to the members as well. 
 

why lie?? Well the optics of old dudes marrying multiple young girls doesn’t exactly sit well with people. 
 

the church doesn’t even really talk about it now. I recall being gospel doctrine teacher back in the day (20yrs ago??) the year we had D&C manual it stated specifically in instructions to teacher to not discuss polygamy when it got to section 132.

here is the section on polygamy in the come follow the d&c manual dated 2021:

 

“Doctrine and Covenants 132:1–2, 29–40

Plural marriage is acceptable to God only when He commands it.

     If class members have questions about plural marriage, help them see that Joseph Smith and other early Saints had questions too. Encourage them to find the question Joseph asked the Lord in Doctrine and Covenants 132:1 and the answer he received in verses 29–40 (see also Jacob 2:27, 30). To help class members learn about ways they can find answers to their gospel questions, it might help to review together “Answering Gospel Questions” at topics.ChurchofJesusChrist.org. Maybe class members could share how they have sought answers to gospel questions and how they remain faithful even when some of their questions remain unanswered.”

no wonder Mormons know jack squat about polygamy. The church is still scared to really teach it. That’s why no one believes all these crazy stories from back in the day. We can’t and have not talked about it. Prob never will.