Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

...women significantly outnumbered men amongst church members in territorial Utah (the territory itself was pretty near equal; but lots of the men were non-LDS miners); this disparity in numbers was quickly evening out by the end of the century.  The survey went on to suggest that had we not abandoned polygamy when we did, we would have very shortly been confronted with a substantial number of LDS men who simply couldn't find wives.

This is specifically why I believe it was implemented and then discontinued.  Specifically, to "raise up seed unto (the Lord)".  Had we remained monogamous, the women would have married non-LDS men who would have caused the children to be raised in other faiths or no faith at all.  At the time of the Manifesto, the lack of disparity in the male/female ratio within the Church would have made polygamy problematic when we're encouraging all men to marry and raise a family.

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think sometimes as apologists we go too far and imply that because wide age disparities between married couples were legal and precedented, they must have been common.  They were not.  Even aside from its polygamous nature, Smith's marriage to someone like--say--Helen Mar Kimball would certainly have raised a lot of eyebrows in 19th century America; even if it didn't reach the nature of an outright scandal.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  Thank you. When I wrote earlier "that's not how I remember it" it wasn't just out of the blue.  I did read another (third party) narrative on it indicating that Helen's mother reacted very poorly to the idea and declared that she was too young.  But since I can't find the source, I guess we can attribute it to rumor.  But that is the impression I had had about it until it was posted otherwise, earlier in this thread.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we go too far and imply that because wide age disparities between married couples were legal and precedented, they must have been common.

I'm not at all sure that anyone has said they were "common". Of course, that requires we know what "common" means. Is it a greater-than-50% fraction, or greater-than-25%, or 10% or 5%?

We might claim, and with reason, that almost everyone knew a woman who had married in her early teens, probably several. That, I believe, would make it "common".

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about.  Thank you. When I wrote earlier "that's not how I remember it" it wasn't just out of the blue.  I did read another (third party) narrative on it indicating that Helen's mother reacted very poorly to the idea and declared that she was too young.  But since I can't find the source, I guess we can attribute it to rumor.  But that is the impression I had had about it until it was posted otherwise, earlier in this thread.

Perhaps a derivative of William Wyl's account?  Here is a link to a theory proposed by Steve Fleming about Joseph Smith's marriages, that mentions Wyl (I think the theory is wrong, and that Hales' interpretation is correct; but it cites to some interesting material).

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LeSellers said:
11 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

we go too far and imply that because wide age disparities between married couples were legal and precedented, they must have been common.

I'm not at all sure that anyone has said they were "common". Of course, that requires we know what "common" means. Is it a greater-than-50% fraction, or greater-than-25%, or 10% or 5%?

We might claim, and with reason, that almost everyone knew a woman who had married in her early teens, probably several. That, I believe, would make it "common".

After thinking about this a bit more, it seems reasonable to extend the argument above to include the XXI.

"Marriage" has been, historically, the union of a man and a woman, whether there was a license or a ceremony or not. Two people started living together, had sex and children, and shared both responsibility and resources. But the critical element was having sex and children. The rest were expected, but not the defining parts.

We look around us today, and see that the average age of first intercourse is now in a girl's early teens, or younger. In some areas, it's before twelve, and even earlier.

The odd thing about all this is that, aside from a few of us weirdo Christians and conservatives, no one thinks this wrong, or even undesirable. Quite the contrary, the only thing that is "wrong" is getting married at the same age. An eleven-year-old pregnant girl is lauded for her "accomplishment", but if she were to want to marry the father of her child, she'd be seen as wicked and a lawbreaker.

Turning the world on its head, and cheering it on.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, LeSellers said:

I'm not at all sure that anyone has said they were "common". Of course, that requires we know what "common" means. Is it a greater-than-50% fraction, or greater-than-25%, or 10% or 5%?

We might claim, and with reason, that almost everyone knew a woman who had married in her early teens, probably several. That, I believe, would make it "common".

Lehi

Regarding statistics on what is considered "common".  15% is "common enough" to not raise eyebrows.  This is a somewhat arbitrary, but statistically consistent, number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Perhaps a derivative of William Wyl's account?  Here is a link to a theory proposed by Steve Fleming about Joseph Smith's marriages, that mentions Wyl (I think the theory is wrong, and that Hales' interpretation is correct; but it cites to some interesting material).

I read through that fairly quickly.  But I didn't see anything about Vilate's being upset about Helen's sealing to Joseph in the body of the article.  In one of the comments, the article's author responds to a question about this topic and mentions that Vilate was upset.  But being in the comments, there was no source cited.

Was there something to that affect in the body of the article that I missed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SilentOne said:

Who lauds that?

You must not get out much.

Quote

Now we have a world where people are confused
If you don't believe me, go and watch the news.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard a child pregnancy lauded. Being a single mom as a late teen, and "making it" without a man maybe, but I don't think we're at the point (yet) were most people would be happy about an 11-year-old getting pregnant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I've never heard a child pregnancy lauded. Being a single mom as a late teen, and "making it" without a man maybe, but I don't think we're at the point (yet) were most people would be happy about an 11-year-old getting pregnant. 

You are correct Eowyn. No one lauds that-much to the dismay and disbelief of conservatives yes, even liberals have values. I'm sure you'll find some whack job who doesn't have an issue with that, but 85% of people of all stripes would be shocked and deeply saddened by it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
39 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I've never heard a child pregnancy lauded. Being a single mom as a late teen, and "making it" without a man maybe, but I don't think we're at the point (yet) were most people would be happy about an 11-year-old getting pregnant. 

You are correct Eowyn. No one lauds that-much to the dismay and disbelief of conservatives yes, even liberals have values. I'm sure you'll find some whack job who doesn't have an issue with that, but 85% of people of all stripes would be shocked and deeply saddened by it. 

85% who do not leaves 15% who may. I did not claim universal praise, but that there is praise for these women-in-girls'-bodies who get pregnant. Years ago, in Time, or Newsweek, there was an article on preteen pregnancies, with pictures, in a national magazine, of an eleven-year-old with her belly hangin' out. It's hard to imagine that the exploitation of this mother-to-be was anything but praise; it was surely not a morality tale, nor a warning.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
19 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think news about pregnant pubescents does, generally speaking, tend to take on a freak-show tenor, rather than a genuine sorrowing for lost innocence.

It's just sad all around. Sad for the innocent lost, sad for the "freak show" type merit. I still think that the overwhelming majority of people from left-right to secular to hardcore religious are troubled by this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I still think that the overwhelming majority of people from left-right to secular to hardcore religious are troubled by this. 

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen.
Yet seen to oft, familiar with her face,
We first pity, then endure, then embrace.

——Alexander Pope

We're well past hatred, we are now enduring (as a society). Some have already entered into embracing.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share