12-year-old Girl Gets Divorce

[Lindy]

I found this looking at the frozen dog story above.

12-year-old girl gets divorce= just sick and wrong....SICK and wrong.....

AN Indian girl who was married off against her will when she was 12, has won a battle to have her two-year marriage annulled so she can go back to school.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15741...8-13762,00.html

[Guest lt]

My best friends Daughter just got engaged, she is 14 and they will marry after college or before she turns 20. It totally amazes me to see young girls in this situation.....this girl is Muslim and its normal to get engaged at such a young age.

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by LaurelTree@Jun 27 2005, 07:49 PM

My best friends Daughter just got engaged, she is 14 and they will marry after college or before she turns 20. It totally amazes me to see young girls in this situation.....this girl is Muslim and its normal to get engaged at such a young age.

Laurel, whether you are a moderator, or not, it makes no difference, to me.

One really cannot point the finger at others without pointing three (other fingers) back at themselves.

The "practice" of marrying off young girls is certainly common, in other countries: you are not in a position

to judge them, on this; for, by the same token, then, you will have to look hard and long at the facts--at

http://www.lds.org (or, perhaps it is a "sister" site, on the web, owned by the Church)--to discover the family

group sheet of Joseph Smith, Jr. You will discover--through looking at the church's own website and material--

that he had at least 26 wives and married them as young as 14 years of age. (The birth, death, and marriage

data reveal quite a lot, for those who are not too afraid to see for themselves). It also shows that Jos. Smith

sealed himself to women [see sealing dates in those group sheets] who were still married to other men, at

the time. Some have suggested that this is a sort of polyandry: signifying that some women were thus

married to two men, at the same time (although sealed to the one and not the other). That such plural

marriages of Joseph Smith were not sexual, in nature, defies all the evidence, even all the evidence which

the early diaries indicate. It is interesting reading, when one has access to all the "juicy details" of someone's

personal thoughts, as written in such a document as a diary (aka, personal journal?).

People, here at this forum, just will not consider anything that disrupts their "world".

Don't be a hypocrite, laurel!

If you feel free to judge OTHERS for marrying off 14-year-olds, then it is time, in my opinion, for you to take

a hard look at Joseph Smith's young teenage brides, too!

"What's good for the goose is good for the gander!"

And, to all the coyotes (predators, at this board who are offensive in attacking people, personally): here's a

'piece of meat, for you--come and get it, then!'

Can anyone, at this board, tell me what puts the cult in culture?

____________________________

The above edited only for the purposes of italicizing certain words, for emphasis.

[john doe]

There's a big difference between 1835 and 2005, and if you don't understand those differences, there's no sense in trying to explain them to those who don't want to know. But thanks for your rant, it was entertaining.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 2 2005, 08:01 AM

There's a big difference between 1835 and 2005, and if you don't understand those differences, there's no sense in trying to explain them to those who don't want to know. But thanks for your rant, it was entertaining.

It was a bit too foam-at-the-mouth, but entertaining...

[Faerie]

*guffaws*

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 2 2005, 07:01 AM

There's a big difference between 1835 and 2005, and if you don't understand those differences, there's no sense in trying to explain them to those who don't want to know. But thanks for your rant, it was entertaining.

What are the differences you are referring to? And YES, inquiring minds DO wanna know!

[john doe]

C'mon Biz, you and I both know that you in particular are not interested in understanding anything LDS, you are only here to degrade the LDS church and its followers. You purposes here are to make "points" and attempt to tell us how we are wrong. Good luck in that endeavor, BTW, we need the weak weeded out once in a while.

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 3 2005, 09:03 PM

Crap! I've been called onto the carpet! It's time for a diversionary tactic!

I'd like to hear what the differences are as well.

[john doe]

By creating a false quote attributed to me that I didn't make, your motives have been made quite clear. You appear to be the kind to make up anything to put others in a bad light. I find it hard to believe that you two clowns don't have the ability to find out what kinds of differences there are between 1835 and 2005. Are you both that dense?

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 3 2005, 10:52 PM

By creating a false quote attributed to me that I didn't make, your motives have been made quite clear. You appear to be the kind to make up anything to put others in a bad light. I find it hard to believe that you two clowns don't have the ability to find out what kinds of differences there are between 1835 and 2005. Are you both that dense?

The false quote was to illustrate the intentions of your red herring post. Are you going to back up your assertion or not?

[Outshined]

John, we're pretending that teenage marriage was not a common practice in the 19th century (along with child labor and such). Play along, and they'll be happy...

[john doe]

Originally posted by Outshined@Jul 4 2005, 04:45 AM

John, we're pretending that teenage marriage was not a common practice in the 19th century (along with child labor and such). Play along, and they'll be happy...

Oh, okay. See, I thought it was obvious to anyone who knows anything about world history knows that teens being married and even bearing children during the early- and even late- 19th century was not an uncommon occurance. And in case you guys didn't know, it had been going on for centuries before as well. In fact, I have seen some speculations claiming that it is not out of the realm of possibility the Mary, the mother of Jesus, may not have been much older than 14 or 15 when she gave birth.

That being said, and I know how you anti's think, so I will clarify now, that does not in any way justify the practice of teen marriage today. Kids are not ready, for a number of reasons, to enter into that practice today. Were they ready when they practiced those things in earlier centuries? Possibly, I wasn't there then, and neither were you, so it would be hard to judge practices that occurred then by today's standards. The world in general is much different today than it was then, and less emphasis is being placed on preparing young kids for marriage at an early age, if ever, today. The average 14 y/o is not ready for marriage today, while it is not impossible to imagine that in earlier times, young people were ready to make those kinds of commitments. Am I being clear enough for you yet, guys?

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by john doe+Jul 4 2005, 08:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (john doe @ Jul 4 2005, 08:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Jul 4 2005, 04:45 AM

John, we're pretending that teenage marriage was not a common practice in the 19th century (along with child labor and such). Play along, and they'll be happy...

Oh, okay. See, I thought it was obvious to anyone who knows anything about world history knows that teens being married and even bearing children during the early- and even late- 19th century was not an uncommon occurance. And in case you guys didn't know, it had been going on for centuries before as well. In fact, I have seen some speculations claiming that it is not out of the realm of possibility the Mary, the mother of Jesus, may not have been much older than 14 or 15 when she gave birth.

That being said, and I know how you anti's think, so I will clarify now, that does not in any way justify the practice of teen marriage today. Kids are not ready, for a number of reasons, to enter into that practice today. Were they ready when they practiced those things in earlier centuries? Possibly, I wasn't there then, and neither were you, so it would be hard to judge practices that occurred then by today's standards. The world in general is much different today than it was then, and less emphasis is being placed on preparing young kids for marriage at an early age, if ever, today. The average 14 y/o is not ready for marriage today, while it is not impossible to imagine that in earlier times, young people were ready to make those kinds of commitments. Am I being clear enough for you yet, guys?

That was pathetic, but if that's all you've got, I guess that's all we're going to get. Thank you for the effort.

[john doe]

That was pathetic, but if that's all you've got, I guess that's all we're going to get. Thank you for the effort.

You're welcome. And since you so far haven't brought anything to the table, it's all you'll get until you have a valid point to make. Please, bring one next time you post, it'll be more beneficial to all of us.

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 4 2005, 03:07 PM

That was pathetic, but if that's all you've got, I guess that's all we're going to get. Thank you for the effort.

You're welcome. And since you so far haven't brought anything to the table, it's all you'll get until you have a valid point to make. Please, bring one next time you post, it'll be more beneficial to all of us.

Back in the olden days, they used to castrate boys so they would have a desirable singing voice. It's okay that they did that back then, because it was a common thing. Just like it isn't reprehensible that many mormons, including Joseph Smith married young girls that were likely pre-menarche.

Does that sound about right to you?

[Outshined]

Sounds nice and inflammatory, but is short on evidence... Who were these "many mormons"? Inquiring minds wanna know...

Like it or not, marriage at a young age was very common in the past, even in the 20th century. That was then, this is now.

"Reprehensible"? Hardly; just a different time.

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by Outshined@Jul 4 2005, 04:19 PM

Sounds nice and inflammatory, but is short on evidence... Who were these "many mormons"? Inquiring minds wanna know...

Like it or not, marriage at a young age was very common in the past, even in the 20th century. That was then, this is now.

"Reprehensible"? Hardly; just a different time.

I find it very disturbing that you are defending pedophilia. I don't think I want to talk to you any more. *shudders*

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 3 2005, 08:03 PM

C'mon Biz, you and I both know that you in particular are not interested in understanding anything LDS, you are only here to degrade the LDS church and its followers. You purposes here are to make "points" and attempt to tell us how we are wrong. Good luck in that endeavor, BTW, we need the weak weeded out once in a while.

Dude, I was born and raised "under the covenant", and I have a lengthy mormon pedigree. I wonder what I don't understand about THE CHURCH. My purpose in visiting this web page is not to "make points" or "degrade" THE CHURCH.

Care to make any other ignorant (as in you don't know all the facts) statements about my personal motives? Or has the "spirit" revealed my inner soul to you magically?

tsk. . . . .

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 3 2005, 09:52 PM

By creating a false quote attributed to me that I didn't make, your motives have been made quite clear. You appear to be the kind to make up anything to put others in a bad light. I find it hard to believe that you two clowns don't have the ability to find out what kinds of differences there are between 1835 and 2005. Are you both that dense?

Actually, the differences I am interested in are the ones that support your arguement.

I know that there are LOTS 'N LOTS of differences between now and then, but I'd like you to narrow it down a bit, please.

Thanks.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by john doe+Jul 4 2005, 07:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (john doe @ Jul 4 2005, 07:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Jul 4 2005, 04:45 AM

John, we're pretending that teenage marriage was not a common practice in the 19th century (along with child labor and such). Play along, and they'll be happy...

Oh, okay. See, I thought it was obvious to anyone who knows anything about world history knows that teens being married and even bearing children during the early- and even late- 19th century was not an uncommon occurance. And in case you guys didn't know, it had been going on for centuries before as well. In fact, I have seen some speculations claiming that it is not out of the realm of possibility the Mary, the mother of Jesus, may not have been much older than 14 or 15 when she gave birth.

That being said, and I know how you anti's think, so I will clarify now, that does not in any way justify the practice of teen marriage today. Kids are not ready, for a number of reasons, to enter into that practice today. Were they ready when they practiced those things in earlier centuries? Possibly, I wasn't there then, and neither were you, so it would be hard to judge practices that occurred then by today's standards. The world in general is much different today than it was then, and less emphasis is being placed on preparing young kids for marriage at an early age, if ever, today. The average 14 y/o is not ready for marriage today, while it is not impossible to imagine that in earlier times, young people were ready to make those kinds of commitments. Am I being clear enough for you yet, guys?

OOPS! Shoulda read more before I posted. Thanks for the clarification. Can you show me some records that back you up? What, for instance, WAS the actual average age of matrimony back then? How does that compare to today?

Stuff like that.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by Normal Bob@Jul 4 2005, 07:02 PM

I find it very disturbing that you are defending pedophilia. I don't think I want to talk to you any more. *shudders*

If that's as grown-up as you get, it's not a serious loss.

By the way, let us know when you find any reference to "pedophilia" in my post; that seems to be in your inflamed imagination...

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by Outshined+Jul 4 2005, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Jul 4 2005, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Normal Bob@Jul 4 2005, 07:02 PM

I find it very disturbing that you are defending pedophilia.  I don't think I want to talk to you any more. *shudders*

If that's as grown-up as you get, it's not a serious loss.

By the way, let us know when you find any reference to "pedophilia" in my post; that seems to be in your inflamed imagination...

You don't think that having sex with a 12 year old falls into the pedophilia category, or just not when discussing people that belong to your religion?

[john doe]

Dude, I was born and raised "under the covenant", and I have a lengthy mormon pedigree. I wonder what I don't understand about THE CHURCH. My purpose in visiting this web page is not to "make points" or "degrade" THE CHURCH.

I don't give a rat's behind about your "pedigree", what I do know is your posting history here. Care to enlighten us as to what percentage of your posts here are even benignly complimentary to the church? I would guess it couldn't be much more than 2-3%.

You don't think that having sex with a 12 year old falls into the pedophilia category, or just not when discussing people that belong to your religion?

DO you have proof that JS or any other LDS leader had sex with 12 year-olds, or are you simply trying make an invalid point? From what I have read, he may have been sealed to a 14 year-old, but from what I have seen, there is no evidence yet that he had sex with her. It may interest you to know that he was sealed to some men as well, are you implying that he had sex with them as well? You two are some pair.

[Normal Bob]

Originally posted by john doe@Jul 4 2005, 11:48 PM

Dude, I was born and raised "under the covenant", and I have a lengthy mormon pedigree. I wonder what I don't understand about THE CHURCH. My purpose in visiting this web page is not to "make points" or "degrade" THE CHURCH.

I don't give a rat's behind about your "pedigree", what I do know is your posting history here. Care to enlighten us as to what percentage of your posts here are even benignly complimentary to the church? I would guess it couldn't be much more than 2-3%.

You don't think that having sex with a 12 year old falls into the pedophilia category, or just not when discussing people that belong to your religion?

DO you have proof that JS or any other LDS leader had sex with 12 year-olds, or are you simply trying make an invalid point? From what I have read, he may have been sealed to a 14 year-old, but from what I have seen, there is no evidence yet that he had sex with her. It may interest you to know that he was sealed to some men as well, are you implying that he had sex with them as well? You two are some pair.

Are you saying that Joseph Smith might have been bisexual? Ewwww!