It is to that end that I present (pun intended) this evidence of presentism in this context. To wit....
Quote:
The cornerstone of statutory rape law has always been age of consent. While early English law set the age of consent at ten, the age was gradually raised over the years. In the nineteenth century, most states had set the age of consent at ten. A few states began by using twelve as the cutoff; Deleware set the age of consent at seven. Once a girl reached the age of consent, her protection from any aggressive advances by men were minimal. In most courts, it was, and still can be, extremely difficult to prove non-consent, without a showing a constant and physical resistance. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the Women's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) led a national lobbying effort to raise the age of consent. While WCTU's arguments were decidedly moralistic and conservative in tone and often embedded in efforts to help women avoid lives of prostitution, the organization was were successful in drawing national attention to the issue of rape. Most importantly, the WCTU focused on helping those who were unable to defend themselves. Melina McTigue, "Statutory Rape Law Reform in Nineteenth Century Maryland: An Analysis of Theory and Practical Change," (2002)
It is a fact that today in society and law, the standard age of consent is significantly higher than what it was in Joseph Smith' day. Therefore, to carp over the ages of some of the girls Joseph Smith was sealed to (in the context of the unproven claim that Joseph Smith actually had sex with them) is presentism.
BC, I don't see how you can use this law to argue the evidence of 'presentism'.
Have you considered the difference in 'de jure' and 'de facto' practice. I think you will find that the 'de facto' attitude to very much older men marrying very much younger girls, particularly if they are in positions of trust that would engender a family relationship (Emma and Joseph were both supposed to have looked on Fanny Alger as a daughter for instance). Then you are getting into very murky areas when it comes to 'victorian' sensibilities.
This issue 'plagued' Joseph then, as it does today.
I don't believe for one minute that 'presentism' is an issue here.
Really, it seems to me that "presentism" was developed by historians as a means to achieving greater scholarly objectivity, whereas Mopologists want to apply it to morality.
I don't quite get why they 'shouldn't' do this. Morality plays a part in past cultures, as defined by their religious, political, economic practices, amongst others.
How to judge the 'de facto' morality of a past culture is difficult to assess however.
Forgive me if I am reading it incorrectly.