As such, the issues of prudence today (not to be confused with morality), may not apply to the past, and thus for us to judge the past based on todays standards, may not be fair or accurate.
Was it moral or prudent for a man in his thirties (i.e. Joseph Smith) to polygamously marry a 14 year-old girl in the 1800's in America? Are you kidding me?
wenglund wrote:I mean, in this day and age where there is rampant divorce, serial marriages, high incedences of promiscuity and infidelity, pervasive pornography, indescency, and rape (statutory or otherwise), etc. etc., it seems more than a bit imbalanced to look back more than a century and a half, and wax apopletic over a likely sealing, and wild speculation about sexual relations, with a near 15-year-old girl.
Three months shy of her 15th birthday is not all that "near." And the "sealing" was indeed a marriage, as dear Helen had become the "wife" of Joseph. I'm inclined to believe there were marital relations between Helen and Joseph, based on Joseph's marital relations with other plural wives.
I understand that is your's and other people's speculation. I just don't think it ground for moral outrage and self-righteous indignation, particularly in light of the demonstrably rampant immorality in our own day and age (which, in other threads, you have ironically and irreverently chided the Church leaders for having "gone too far" in their attempts to protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey thereto).
As such, the issues of prudence today (not to be confused with morality), may not apply to the past, and thus for us to judge the past based on todays standards, may not be fair or accurate.
Was it moral or prudent for a man in his thirties (i.e. Joseph Smith) to polygamously marry a 14 year-old girl in the 1800's in America? Are you kidding me?
wenglund wrote:I understand that is your's and other people's speculation. I just don't think it ground for moral outrage and self-righteous indignation, particularly in light of the demonstrably rampant immorality in our own day and age (which, in other threads, you have ironically and irreverently chided the Church leaders for having "going too far" in their attempts to protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey thereto).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, that's the tu quoque fallacy, in case you're keeping score. Just because what you perceive as immorality goes uncondemned here (though some of us are probably about as concerned as you are in these matters), this does not mean we have no right to comment on the morality of Joseph Smith's behavior. If some middle-aged man today told his friends that they must give their daughter to him as a wife, or it would affect their eternal salvation, I would condemn that just as if it had happened in 1843. Nothing hypocritical about it.
I totally admit there are certain behaviors that are reprehensible to me.
Killing or harming children, sexually using girls and women, slavery, torturing animals, are a few of those things that I doubt I will ever be convinced are God's will or even remotely holy.
It doesn't matter to me if these occur today or if they happened five thousand years ago.
I tried to convince myself for many years that some things that felt really horrible to me, were Godly, and some things that I felt were loving and sacred were horrible.
wenglund wrote:I understand that is your's and other people's speculation. I just don't think it ground for moral outrage and self-righteous indignation, particularly in light of the demonstrably rampant immorality in our own day and age (which, in other threads, you have ironically and irreverently chided the Church leaders for having "gone too far" in their attempts to protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey thereto).
Sorry, Wade, but "marrying" and having sex with multiple women behind your spouse's back is immoral and wrong in any day and age, whether 1843 or 2007. And no amount of justification or spin will change this simple fact. Oh, and if you honestly believe that telling girls not to tease their hair or wear a second pair of earrings will "protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey [to immorality]," then I have some nice swamp land I'll sell to you real cheap.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
wenglund wrote:And, is it possible that some of you are being conveniently selective in your moral outrage and righteous indignation?
I mean, in this day and age where there is rampant divorce, serial marriages, high incedences of promiscuity and infidelity, pervasive pornography, indescency, and rape (statutory or otherwise), etc. etc., it seems more than a bit imbalanced to look back more than a century and a half, and wax apopletic over a likely sealing, and wild speculation about sexual relations, with a near 15-year-old girl.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
So, let me see if I understand. Because people today continue to "sin," the whole of society is proscribed from commenting critically on the behavior of sinners in years past?
More specifically, I cannot criticize the "Second only to Jesus Christ" for serial adultery, because somewhere out there in the world somebody is looking at dirty pictures on the internet?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Sorry, Wade, but "marrying" and having sex with multiple women behind your spouse's back is immoral and wrong in any day and age, whether 1843 or 2007. And no amount of justification or spin will change this simple fact.
One would think that was self-evident. That people even have to justify this kind of behavior speaks volumes to me.
Oh, and if you honestly believe that telling girls not to tease their hair or wear a second pair of earrings will "protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey [to immorality]," then I have some nice swamp land I'll sell to you real cheap.
I've always been puzzled by the fixation on personal grooming style.
wenglund wrote:I mean, in this day and age where there is rampant divorce, serial marriages, high incedences of promiscuity and infidelity, pervasive pornography, indescency, and rape (statutory or otherwise), etc. etc., it seems more than a bit imbalanced to look back more than a century and a half, and wax apopletic over a likely sealing, and wild speculation about sexual relations, with a near 15-year-old girl.
Three months shy of her 15th birthday is not all that "near." And the "sealing" was indeed a marriage, as dear Helen had become the "wife" of Joseph. I'm inclined to believe there were marital relations between Helen and Joseph, based on Joseph's marital relations with other plural wives.
I understand that is your's and other people's speculation. I just don't think it ground for moral outrage and self-righteous indignation, particularly in light of the demonstrably rampant immorality in our own day and age (which, in other threads, you have ironically and irreverently chided the Church leaders for having "gone too far" in their attempts to protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey thereto).
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I would condemn both. But for Joseph the issue is really multifaceted. Why did Joseph marry other women in the first place? If God really told him to do so then why was he so ungodly about how he did it? Why did he hide it from his wife? Why did he use his power to persuade those in a less powerful position to marry him? Why promise exaltation? Why marry other men's wives? Why tell a young woman or girl that she was his from the pre-existence? That is immoral in my opinion. Of course the idea of marrying a fourteen year old is repugnant now and then. Especially under the persuasive influence of a man that those he was trying to persuade viewed as THE PROPHET. Such a man has a fiduciary responsibility to take extra care not to abuse the power and influence he has over his followers. In the case of plural marriage it seems that that power was abused and thus the immorality of it seems highlighted. Like I said, if God commanded it it It was not rolled out in a very godly way.