BYU dumps employee's apologist page ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Rollo might remember. We were both rather astounded at the response.

Sorry, but I don't remember either. Usually it's the same folks who praise Abraham's 'faithfulness' for willingly offering up his son as a sacrifice (which I openly disdain, even in Church settings).

[_Runtu]

Rollo might remember. We were both rather astounded at the response.

Sorry, but I don't remember either. Usually it's the same folks who praise Abraham's 'faithfulness' for willingly offering up his son as a sacrifice (which I openly disdain, even in Church settings).

But you remember the thread, right? Please tell me I'm not imagining things again. ;)

[_guy sajer]

How any person who loves his/her daughter would give her up to be the property of an other man is beyond my limited ability to comprehend. It is, moreover, morally reprehensible. She's not theirs to give away. She's not property. She's a human being with as legitimate a right to her own moral agency and happiness as her parents. She should not be sacrificed to satisfy the parents' warped sense of religious duty.

To those FAIRistas who answer in the affirmative, you disgust me.

Children aren't property--they're liabilities (although any cash they earn is mine until they turn 18--I think).

In business language, I prefer to think of them as "assets" or "investments." The return I get from investment in my children more than compensates for the cost.

Would it be wrong to allow someone to adopt your child?

What's the context? In certain contexts, no. In other contexts, yes. In still other contexts, maybe.

Would it be wrong to allow your child to make the decision herself? At what age would it be appropriate?

A "child" is not capable of informed, legal consent. Nor I think of "moral" consent. That is why we differentiate children from adults, legally, morally, and in just about every other way. It becomes appropriate when they become adults, and we (society) recognize that they are capable (in theory) and free to make their own choice.

By the way, I see nothing wrong with polygamy if it is consensual. I'm not sure that 14 is old enough to give consent, but then again I am not exactly an expert on human development. I'm not sure why 18 is a magic age and whether there isn't sufficient variability that someone who's almost 15 couldn't make the cut. I heard that 16 year olds can get married. And yet I would consider them too young to give consent. Then again, I think 21 is too young for marriage.

The problem is that polygamy, as practiced in conservative religious communities, is all to often not consensual. The assumption of informed, consent fails too frequently to accept it as the general rule.

If it were merely the case of adults, living in free society, exercising a life-style choice to participate in plural marriage, then it's one thing, but we are talking largely of polygamy practiced by dogmatic, closed, autocratic religious communities. The standard you describe does not exist in general in this context.

We have to set the cutoff line somewhere, and society agrees that it is around 18. Not everyone who is 18 is capable of informed, rational choice, but on average, society believes they are, and they are at a significantly higher rate than someone is 17, 16, 15, etc.

Anyone who has children will tell you, however, that 14-16 are definitely too young for children to make such portentous decisions that affect their lives so dramatically.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But you remember the thread, right? Please tell me I'm not imagining things again. ;)

Oh, yes, I do remember the thread, and that the various justification for HJK's actions were astounding. The honest ones admitted (or at least implied) they would do the same thing if in HJK's place. And, yet, some folks continue to question whether TMB loyalty to the Church can become dangerous .... With attitudes like this in the 21st century, should it be surprising that events like the MMM occurred? Me thinks not.

[_Runtu]

But you remember the thread, right? Please tell me I'm not imagining things again. ;)

Oh, yes, I do remember the thread, and that the various justification for HJK's actions were astounding. The honest ones admitted (or at least implied) they would do the same thing if in HJK's place. And, yet, some folks question whether TMB loyalty to the Church can become dangerous .... With attitudes like this in the 21st century, should it be surprising that events like the MMM occurred? Me thinks not.

I agree. If a religion has you willing to give up your child to a man, you will pretty much do anything they ask you to do.

[_asbestosman]

Children aren't property--they're liabilities (although any cash they earn is mine until they turn 18--I think).

In business language, I prefer to think of them as "assets" or "investments." The return I get from investment in my children more than compensates for the cost.

What is the difference between property and and assets or investments? Ah, I should be careful. I don't want to ruin what was meant to be a humorous remark by me (and presumably humorous from you too).

Would it be wrong to allow someone to adopt your child?

What's the context? In certain contexts, no. In other contexts, yes. In still other contexts, maybe.

I can see it as right when parents do not feel financially/emotionally able to adequately provide for their children. I assume you'd forbid it in the context of the prophet asking for it, but I would like to know why. Would you allow your child to be adopted (or perhaps put under guardianship of) someone who would help give the child a great education? What about foreign exchange programs (not that I know how those work)?

We have to set the cutoff line somewhere, and society agrees that it is around 18. Not everyone who is 18 is capable of informed, rational choice, but on average, society believes they are, and they are at a significantly higher rate than someone is 17, 16, 15, etc.

Anyone who has children will tell you, however, that 14-16 are definitely too young for children to make such portentous decisions that affect their lives so dramatically.

In other words, the moral indignation people have towards the prophet and some of the younger women he was married to is nothing more than their arbitrary prejudice instead of the result of a scientific study? Got it.

[_truth dancer]

We as a civilized society have collectively determined that girls should no longer be used by men.

We have collectively decided that once a child is grown and mature enough to understand the ramifications of possibly being used she can make that decision. Because of the concern for our children, conscientious adults have concluded that girls should be mature and grown before making these types of decisions.

How anyone can support the notion of girls being used by older men ASTOUNDS me to no end. I can understand the animal world where males are basically about using any female who happens to be around but in the human world, with an ability to experience compassion and care for children, this use of girls and women is disgusting beyond belief!

Yesterday, a situation presented itself to me where a grown man raped the fourteen year old daughter of the woman with whom he was having an affair. The fourteen year old "willingly" consented to the encounter.

Does anyone in their right mind this this is OK?

Most decent human beings would agree this man should be put away for a very long time. Most of civilized society would agree this young girl was taken advantage of and too young to make a mature decision where her body was used for the pleasure of a grown man.

Why some people think this was totally fine in earlier days is beyond my comprehension. It was NEVER right or good. Acceptable to some perhaps just as was slavery and infanticide. Of God? No chance!

Thank goodness humankind has evolved to (at least begin to) care for children.

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

Children aren't property--they're liabilities (although any cash they earn is mine until they turn 18--I think).

In business language, I prefer to think of them as "assets" or "investments." The return I get from investment in my children more than compensates for the cost.

[What is the difference between property and and assets or investments? Ah, I should be careful. I don't want to ruin what was meant to be a humorous remark by me (and presumably humorous from you too).

Agreed.

Would it be wrong to allow someone to adopt your child?

What's the context? In certain contexts, no. In other contexts, yes. In still other contexts, maybe.

I can see it as right when parents do not feel financially/emotionally able to adequately provide for their children. I assume you'd forbid it in the context of the prophet asking for it, but I would like to know why. Would you allow your child to be adopted (or perhaps put under guardianship of) someone who would help give the child a great education? What about foreign exchange programs (not that I know how those work)?

Because a prophet has no right to ask it, and parents have no right to consider such a request. Parents' primary moral duty is to protect the welfare of their children. They are not items to be bargained or negotiated in relation to the demands, whims of religious leaders. Parents who would seriously entertain such a request are, IMHO, morally reprehensible.

This said, one might argue that just about any child can be placed in a better situation than the one they're currently in. But I don't infer from this that a system of trading children around would be workable or morally desirable. Parents have a moral duty to see to the welfare of their children, but this does not extend to a moral duty to place them in a better situation, with exceptions if the child is in a truly harmful environment. The parental moral duty is, in other words, balanced against the moral right of parents to raise their own children. This is, like many issues, complicated at the margins and cannot be adequately addressed in a couple of paragraphs in such a forum.

We have to set the cutoff line somewhere, and society agrees that it is around 18. Not everyone who is 18 is capable of informed, rational choice, but on average, society believes they are, and they are at a significantly higher rate than someone is 17, 16, 15, etc.

Anyone who has children will tell you, however, that 14-16 are definitely too young for children to make such portentous decisions that affect their lives so dramatically.

In other words, the moral indignation people have towards the prophet and some of the younger women he was married to is nothing more than their arbitrary prejudice instead of the result of a scientific study? Got it.

There is a wealth of empirical evidence that children's brains are not fully developed. They are not adults, legally, morally, or physiologically. Arguing that 14 year olds are not old enough to consent to be a man's property is not my arbitrary prejudice, but backed by a multitude of scientific evidence and is confirmed by the social mores of our society.

The age of 18 does have an arbitrary component to it, but unless you could provide your own scientific evidence to the contrary, it strikes me as a very prudent, reasonable cut-off.

[_asbestosman]

In other words, the moral indignation people have towards the prophet and some of the younger women he was married to is nothing more than their arbitrary prejudice instead of the result of a scientific study? Got it.

I need to make one correction. I should have said women he was sealed to instead of married to.

[_Runtu]

In other words, the moral indignation people have towards the prophet and some of the younger women he was married to is nothing more than their arbitrary prejudice instead of the result of a scientific study? Got it.

I need to make one correction. I should have said women he was sealed to instead of married to.

You know, if it was just some sort of sealing ritual for eternity, that would be entirely different for me. Either way, it's not so much the age (though, yeah, the age difference makes me queasy) but the coercion involved and his keeping it hidden from his wife. If it was just a ceremony for the hereafter, I doubt he would have kept it from his wife. And I'm sorry, I can't get past the idea that you approach somebody and tell them that if they give you their daughter, they will ensure their place in the celestial kingdom. Just doesn't sound right, for some reason.