Jersey Girl:
I think RandyJ was on those threads but I don't recall his posts. My interactions consisted mainly of trying to engage Steve Benson. The threads no longer appear but to the best of my recollection, Steve used the phrase "sex with underage women" and when asked to supply the legal age of consent for the time period, he did not do so. Instead, as I stated previously, he threw out snotty off topic one liners. There were others that used the phrase "statutory rape". Again, when asked to supply the state statutes, they ignored my requests and Dan later supplied the information.
So instead of attempting to back Steve into a corner by assuming he was referring to legalities of what constituted “underage sex” at the time, why not ask him what he meant by “underage” and whether or not he meant “underage” in a legal sense?
Underage can mean under the commonly acceptable age women typically married at that time and an age under which one would be considered to have the maturity and experience of an adult to make one’s own decisions responsibly with self interest protected.
Here is quote from Steve written Jan23 13:28 on RFM in response to Jimmy:
Jimmy Rainbow: " . . . [S]he [Helen Mar Kimball] was NOT underage as you state."
Answer: You obviously haven't read my post where I explicitly said that I used the term "underage" not to refer to the legal age of consent but to maturity. It is a legitimate usage of the term, as provided by accepted dictionary definitions.
Here is another quote from Steve in which my impression was that Dan was more interested in putting Steve (perhaps others as well) into a corner by focussing on definitions of rape and statutory rape which would end the discussion with a win..like the check mate move in chess...rather than of getting to the heart of the issue…of whether or not Smith was ethical with regards to marrying Kimball and whether she was “underage” even in her day by the standards of her time.
Steve (Jan 22 20:23 RFM)
When I then asked Vogel more directly if Smith had sex with his 14-year-old underage bride, Helen Mar Kimball, Vogel nearly blew his top, accused me of trying to deviously snare him and refused, again, to answer forthrightly, falling back once more on his tried-and-true "assumption" dodge and weave:
"See! You are trying to entrap me. Why don't you just say that if Joseph Smith had sex with Helen Mar, and she was a minor, then he committed statutory rape. That seems to be where the discussion is headed. That brings the discussion back to the issue you put aside at the beginning--rape. I'm assuming Joseph Smith had sex with her, but apparently the law in Illinois in the 1840s didn't define that as rape. That was my question that set this whole thing off. And I found that everyone was willing to jump on the bandwagon without even checking for facts."
So you see Jersey Girl..by pressing Steve for the legality of what constituted “underage” at the time period, when even Dan acknowledged Steve had put rape aside… he rightly did ignore your request. The legalities of statutory rape at the time, has little bearing on whether or not the marriage and likely sex with H. Kimball (given her written statement)was ethically immoral.
Randy J had a good post in reply to D. Vogel on this and were it not for RFM deleting posts after 2 weeks I wouldn’t post it. Also Dan did reply to him but frankly I thought he didn’t overcome the points very well which Randy made. I could post it if you’d like.
Subject: Response to Dan Vogel.....
Date: Jan 25 21:49
Author: Randy J.
Mail Address:
Vogel's thread was closed before I even had a chance to send my response. So here it is:
I wrote:
>>Whether Smith had sex with Helen or not, or whether we want to call it "rape" or not, EXACTLY HOW was it the "standard" of Joseph Smith's time for a 36-year-old man, married with children, and a supposed Christian minister, to engage in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl, or any other female of *any* age?
Dan Vogel responded:
>Hold on, now, the subject WAS the definition of "rape". You can't change the subject and act like you have a meaningful rebuttal.
In these recent discussions, I have stated my opinion that I don't know whether Smith was guilty of rape or not, and that that would have to determined by a legal scholar.
However, you went beyond the question of rape when you apologized for Smith's actions by asking if we were "judging Joseph Smith by the standards of our time?" You have repeated this "We can't judge Smith by today's standards" crap several times, and my question to you was, and is, Exactly how did Smith's activities jibe with the standards of his *own* time?
You are arguing the issue from a legalistic angle of what constitutes rape. That's the tactic we'd expect from a TBM apologist, the likes of whom I debated these issues against for years. We Ex-Mormons are more concerned with what is moral and ethical---especially when the person in question was an alleged Christian minister, and the founder of a sect whose canonized dogma specifically prohibited polygamy and adultery.
As to whether Smith's actions constituted rape, one poster provided a legal definition:
>Rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out:
>3.where the victim believes, due to the perpetrator's intentional deceptive acts, that the perpetrator is her spouse.
To which you replied:
>This begs the question of whether or not they were married. Joseph Smith was in trouble law with all his wives, not just the 14 year-old. He didn't deceive her about being her husband. They all recognized him as her husband, even if the law didn't. But everyone involved knew that the law didn't recognize Joseph Smith as the husband to his plural wives. So, it wasn't exactly deception. >They were all in willful violation of the law.
Your position is that there was no deception, but what a legal scholar would have to determine is, did Smith's bogus claim of having received a "revelation on celestial marriage" constitute that deception? We ought to ask ourselves, "Would any of those females have had sex with Joseph Smith if he had *not* justified it with his "revelation"? Of course they wouldn't have.
As a self-proclaimed prophet, Smith convinced his victims that he had a "higher law" from God that overrode man's laws. Secular laws exist to prevent predators from victimizing people in that manner. According to the law quoted above, in my opinion Smith would be guilty of rape by deception, because he pretended to be the womens' husband by the pretended authority of his revelation.
>I have admitted that Joseph Smith sexually abused Helen Mar, as well as all the rest of the women.
Early on, you pled Smith's case by asserting that:
>Girls became women sooner back then.
That's the exact same argument we hear from TBM apologists. When data was presented that refuted your assertion, you backpedaled with:
>When I said girls became women earlier back then, I was talking socially, not biologically.
...which seems disingenuous to me, since the discussion is whether or not Smith had sex with underage girls, not whether he took them on a buggy ride. Also, your point is moot because the question of minimum legal marriage age only applies to legal marriages; Smith's relationships with other women were not marriages in any sense of the word. Most of his affairs were one-night stands or short flings, and that makes it further obvious that he concocted his "revelation" primarily to have sex with them, rather than to serve as a legitimate husband to them. So that is further deception.
You also responded to a poster:
>You have already decided that such behavior is immoral as if there is some objective way to determine that, or that morals don't change with society.
It's comments like that which cause readers on this BB to accuse you of being an apologist for Smith. It was no more moral for anyone who claims to be a Christian to have sex with people to whom they aren't married then than it is now---especially when that minister's own dogma specifically prohibited such behavior.
Re: your comparison of Smith to Bennett:
>I think you misunderstand my point and why I used Bennett as an example. >First, Joseph Smith wasn't doing EXACTLY what Bennett did.
In the eyes of the law, and of the canonized doctrine of the church, he was. Your usage of Bennett as an example, when Smith was guilty of the same nefarious behavior, is a double standard, which Mopologists engage in constantly.
>That was the point I was making. Bennett was pretending he was single, and didn't mention that he had a wife living in another state. >So, when he proposed marriage to a woman in Nauvoo, it was deception, as part of the statutory rape law defined it. >Joseph Smith, on the other hand, wasn't deceiving anyone about his married status.
He deceived the laws of Illinois which prohibited bigamy. If Smith wasn't consciously aware that he was being deceptive towards state statutes, he wouldn't have denied teaching or practicing polygamy, and he couldn't have been prosecuted for it. Also, to repeat, Smith deceived his victims by pretending to have a "revelation from God" which overrode secular laws.
>Based on this obvious difference, I questioned the applicability of statutory rape to Joseph Smith. That's all. >I also mentioned that I'm not a lawyer and do not know what would happen if Joseph Smith's case was tried in Illinois in the 1840s.
I agree that it would take a legal scholar to make that determination on the question of rape. However, on the issues of bigamy and adultery, the law is clearly against Smith.
>I thought I was just being fair.
If you were being fair, you wouldn't have received so harsh a treatment by so many different people here.
>What does adultery have to do with rape?
The deception angle.
>Of course, Joseph Smith knew he was violating the law, but he wasn't the only one.
Oh, so it was okay because others were doing it too? That's another excuse we hear from apologists. What did the canonized, published rules of Smith's own church say on the subject?
>He lived in a time where alternative marriage was not an infrequent occurrence among what is called the small sects. (I recommend Lawrence Foster's books on this subject.)
I think "frequent" is an exaggeration. There was the Oneida community and a few others, and then there were sects like the Shakers who eschewed sex altogether. However, Victorian-style monogamy and fidelity was still the norm in Smith's day, as it still is legally today.
>I made a point that Helen Mar and her parents knew about Joseph Smith's married status and were knowingly violating the law. >I noticed that in responding to me, you fail to deal with my justifications for my opinion.
As I pointed out in another thread, individuals don't get to decide which laws they want to keep; the law does. And as I wrote to you specifically in another thread (to which you never responded), D&C 58:21 says "Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath n need to break the laws of the land." That passage sinks Smith's polygamy practice as well as your apologetics on his behalf. I think it's rather pointless to plead his case on the rape issue when he didn't even follow his own God re: marriage and adultery.
>Given that, I find your indignation towards me to be unwarranted.
(chuckle) Why do you single me out? I'm hardly the only one here who has taken exception to your comments. In fact, in my 5 or 6 years here, I can't recall anyone generating more controversy and ill feeling than you have over the last few days.
Lemme clue you in to what's happening here, Dan: This BB is for recovery from Mormonism, not for debating its merits or the morals of its leaders. Eric K. and his helpers have worked very hard for a decade to keep RFM as an "apologist-free zone." Several Mopologists have tried to invade this BB over the years and either take it over or shut it down (you would recognize their names.) One method they have used is to come here and play "devil's advocate" or to pretend to seek "fair and balanced debate" in order to disrupt the mission of the forum. So when someone like you comes here and makes comments which sound sympathetic to Smith or the church, you're going to get a backlash.
We don't care whether Smith's behavior legally constituted rape or not. We detest and loathe Joseph Smith and everything he stood for. When you make comments here which sound sympathetic to Smith, or make excuses for him, it's sorta like a Neo-Nazi going to a Holocaust survivor chatroom and saying that Hitler wasn't so bad. Get it?
When I pointed out to Steve that what he and others were posting (for example a quote from Helen) was compelling evidence, it did not constitute proof. That was my only real complaint with what Steve was throwing around and then later, his failure to supply documentation.
Proof of what? That Smith had sex with Kimballl? And do you think Steve doesn’t appreciate that he doesn’t have conclusive evidence for that? But one shouldn’t dismiss the most probable likely conclusion that the data leads one to conclude with probability ..just because there isn’t conclusive evidence. Surely given what is known about Smith, it is reasonable to assume his intent was a sexual relationship with Kimball whether or not it occurred is moot in judging Smith’s ethical character.
The people whose posts I read on those threads were not interested in detail, they were interested in bashing Dan and throwing about assertions with no documentation. One poster did offer up a quote from Helen Mar Kimball. Dan was more than willing to participate in dialogue but I think he eventually realized the futility of attempting to enage a lynch mob. Dan himself stated that he thought Joseph Smith had sex with Helen and others, but he didn't agree with the use of the term "rape" being applied to it.
So Steve is the one blamed for inciting the lynch mob?
I personally do think that the description rape is appropriate given Kimball’s statement of not appreciating what the marriage entailed. The inference which can be drawn while not conclusive indicates she likely meant she didn’t appreciate the marriage entailed sex in the present life. Smith as an authority figure used his power to coerce both her parents and her into the marriage. Assuming she had sex, she would have been raped by deception. That some individuals might take offense to the use of the word rape because they find it inflammatory does not mean the word is inappropriate. Or that some individuals might assume the word rape can only be used in a legal sense is their mistake. Can you think of a better word to use to describe an individual who has been coerced by means of undue influence into a marriage (which would entail sex)?
Do I think Helen knew what she was getting into? I have nothing to go on except the few quotes I've read from her. I'd say she didn't fully understand any more than some of the others might have understood, that the Celestial Marriages they were about to enter in to would include a sexual relationship. I'm just guessing there.
You are guessing but doing so using evidence from her. The fact that it is from her makes it relatively strong evidence. This is what Dan said on Mad.. “Some said it was rape by deception. But the law was meant for people like John C. Bennett who proposed marriage to a woman in Nauvoo, while he was secretly already marriage to a woman in another state. Besides, there was no deception since Helen Mar and her parents knew the exceptional circumstances and were willfully defying the law.
Dan focuses on legal def’n of rape. It’s obvious to me that people would not likely in this discussion be referring to legalities of rape when they say “rape by deception.” The only way he can argue there was no deception is if one is to assume Smith in his marriages truly thought God was telling him to marry. But given Smith’s ethical character and history, it is a stretch to assume that he employed no deception.
I could see where some of the women might have been seduced by Joseph's position, would have known the relationship would have included sex and welcomed it. How are we to know? There could easily have been women involved with Smith who welcomed the relationships and when they found out about the others claimed they were tricked...hell hath no fury. Again, it's only speculation on my part. The only evidences that I know of are some of the statements from these women and the genealogies on Family Search.org. Other than that, I have no way of knowing what went on physically between Joseph Smith and anyone.
Sure there is no conclusive proof. No photos, video, tape recordings..but given all that’s known the presumption overwhelmingly is his polygamous relationships involved sex. Don’t get too hung up on needing “proof” to reach conclusions. Critical thinking in which one looks at all the data/evidence to determine probability conclusions is valid. It would be poor reasoning to dismiss data and not come to a probability conclusion based on not having conclusive evidence.
This is what I know. We can no longer claim that Joseph Smith commited either statutory rape or had sex with underage women. The information that Dan supplied from that time period rules that out entirely. We cannot legally judge Joseph Smith using contemporary law.
Hold on a sec. Yes we can determine whether Smith had sex with underage women. We can look at the norms of the time, we can look at the circumstances surrounding the various cases (his polygamous marriages.) What is really important here is Smith’s ethical character. Did he break laws, did he use undue influence over others, did he take advantage of the vulnerable that sort of thing. Limiting the discussion to ONLY whether or not Smith broke the law of his time, is not the heart of the matter.
Do I think Joseph Smith was a con? Yes.
Do I think Joseph Smith used his position to defraud women? Yes.
Do I think Joseph Smith used coercion with these women? Yes, but as another poster commented on one of those threads if coercion constitutes rape then a large majority of males are guility of rape.
In regards to your last sentence the discussion would need to involve a definition of how the word rape is being used.
If you have evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen Mar Kimball, I'd like to see it. Please post it here.
What you mean is conclusive evidence right? But again though, conclusive evidence is not a requirement in good critical thinking to a high probability conclusion. There is plenty of evidence that Smith’s polygamous marriages were meant to have included sex. There is some evidence and its fairly strong that Kimball only appreciated after she married that her marriage was in the normal sense of including sex and not limited to some dynastic afterlife purpose. But aside from that, is this whole matter really all about whether or not Smith actually consummated his marriage with Kimball? Is that really what is at issue and what people on RFM are interested in? I don’t think so. The real issue is what sort of character was J. Smith. Was he an honest highly ethical individual or was he generally unethical, interested in his self at the expense of others?