Yes the worse kind, in the name of God and religion.

If you mean a pedophile, I am not sure he met the criteria especially for his time.I haven't seen any laws from that time that declared 14 year olds below the age of consent. However, he certainly was a sex addict who used his position of authority to seduce women and girls. I'll go for over-sexed, manipulative con man and jerk.

Looks to me that's the case. He was certainly a womanizer and adulturer to the extreme.

Hypocrite.

Preached one line, lived another.

Opportunist.

no reason to think his 14 year olds were anything but children. He used them and discarded them, ruining their chances for a normal life.

One of these references mentions an average age of 16.6.

http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm

Heresy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no reason to think his 14 year olds were anything
> but children. He used them and discarded them,
> ruining their chances for a normal life.
>
> One of these references mentions an average age of
> 16.6.
>
> http://www.mum.org/menarage.htm
That is partly true, menarche was later, but the age of marriage from ancient times to a generation or two before JS was as young as twelve and the g irls often had babies before 14 so obviously there were many 1young teens who had reached puberty. In JS's time it wasn't the norm to marry young girls, but it also wasn't illegal which was my point.You can't call him for being a pedophile if there was no law against having sex with a 14 year old. However, he was already married so he certainly was guilty of adultery, ecclesiastical abuse, taking advantage of a child by threatening her family, lying to his wife and plenty of other things.Even by today's standards and laws, he would be an ephebophile rather than a pedophile.

Yeah, I agree with your point. What age was considered a "child" back then? There's no evidence he was interested in children, at least under the age of 14. A girl could be developed by that age. He seemed to be interested in all ages of women between 14 and 52. Not sure that would qualify him as a pedophile.

However just because laws weren't in place back then doesn't mean his actions weren't sick and wrong. There was a time when slavery was legal. Doesn't make it right and doesn't mean you should support it. I always felt that if Joseph Smith was a real prophet, God would not have allowed him to marry teenagers (let alone practice polygamy).

Also, just because marrying age was lower back then, doesn't mean it was normal for a man his age to marry teenagers. Usually teen aged girls married men who were closer to their age like boys in their late teens or early 20's, NOT in their 40's.

In our time, Elizabeth Smart is old enough to be a pervert's wife. But... Her abductors were likely technically temple worthy.

It does not matter what her abductor's lust wanted, nor her age. Hey, it's not about physiology (get some education about that). Joseph Smith was a pedophile. The criminal abductor of Elizabeth Smith is a pedophile. If you cannot intellectually figure this out, I am so sorry for you. Keeping kids away from such people is important, anybody wants to argue semantics about this makes me want to keep watch over the local park.

JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PEDOPHILE AND A SIKKO AND IF YOU WANT DOCUMENTATION, it will be provided.

Learn to read. We are talking about law and custom and what was done in the past. Nobody thinks it is a good idea, but it is a fact that during much of history a 14 year old was considered old enough to marry. Got it? .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 02:01AM by bona dea.

It wasn't the norm at his time, but 30 something men marrying girls in their early teens was perfectly acceptable in ancient times and the MiddleAges. I'll say I'm glad I didn't live then, but you can't judge someone from the distant past by today's standard.It just doesn't work. Even if Helen had been older, what he did was wrong on plenty of other levels and I am sure he knew it. I don't know what the age of consent was in the case of Kimball, but in many states it was as low as 10. Thomas Jefferson had a child with a 14-15 year old slave girl a few years before and John Jay married a girl in her mid teens. They were both much older too. However, by Smith's time it was unusual for a bride to be that young, but it did happen and was more common 40 or 50 years earlier.

For the mormon apologist who wishes to justify Joseph Smith's "marriage" -sealing- to underage girls and raping of them, there are more well-specifically hisorians describe thi in abundance?

Will you just tell me please why you think it's ok for a 33 year old man to use his magic book to justify having sex with a minor (even in those times, Helen Mar Kimball was a minor).

Helen and her parents fought him. Why do you think this union was ok? Skip the BOM quotes. Tell me why?

We obviously have several Ritual Sex Abuse conspiracy theory nut jobs here.
It was completely normal and legal for men in their 30's and 40's to marry teenage girls in JS's time.
Judging men who lived 150+ years ago by today's laws and mores is stupid as shit.
That insane crank Linda Walker once told an Exmo Foundation conference that FLDS men who are secret "KKK Satanists" ritually molest children on "altars in the woods"!

I am not a Mormon nor an apologist. I am a historian and my point is that it happened a lot throughout history. Whether you like it or not, that is a fact. I also said that it was not the norm in JS' time even if it was still legal. I didn't say I agree with it. I don't and made that clear. BTW, I left the church in 1968.Is there some part of this you don't understand? It seems clear to me.

The term I use in describing Joseph Smith is "sexual predator." I think it's the most accurate.

The charge that he was a "pedophile" doesn't work. Helen Marr Kimball was about two months shy of her 15th birthday when she became his "plural wife." However, according to Helen herself the whole thing was not originally Joseph's idea but was requested by Helen's father Heber C. Kimball. According to Helen, Heber wanted a "dynastic" connection to Joseph in the hereafter and asked Joseph to take Helen as a plural wife.

Joseph's modus operandi in approaching younger women fits the "sexual predator" model to a T. He would groom them, separate them from their parents etc., use his position of authority, swear them to secrecy, threaten dire consequences if they told. etc. Those who refused him and did tell were publicly called all kinds of names and had their reputations trashed by Joseph's cronies (Martha Brotherton, Nancy Rigdon, Sarah Pratt).

The man was scum. But he wasn't a pedophile.

Right on the money to me, baura.

Remember that even now in many nations the age of consent is 16, not 18 like in America.

His actions were skeevy and manipulative, but he was not a pedophile.

It also varies from state to state. What is statuatory rape in one state isn't in another. I had a friend marry at 14 with her parents' consent. She is still married happily to the same guy. She was not pregnant either.

I agree that he wasn't married to anyone but Emma regardless of what he claimed, but the age of consent is still relevant.

.Double post















..
.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 09:42AM by bona dea.

Nobody is defending JS. We are just saying he didn't meet the definition of pedophile because 1. There is no evidence that the girl was not sexually mature. History shows that even though menarche was later than it is today, many girls were mothers at 14 or 15. 2. The age of consent was much younger so having sex with a 14 year old was not statuatory rape. That hardly means JS was a good guy and was perfectly justifed in seducing young girls or anyone else for that matter. Hope you got it because I am tired of repeating myself.

I would agree with that. I think Longout needs to actually read my posts.

By the way, this whole argument about the age of marriage in JS's time is moot. His arrangements were not "marriage." He didn't publicly announce his relationships as "marriage." He didn't live with his plural wives openly as man and wife. He didn't take over husbandly responsibilities for support. He was already married to Emma so none of his supposedly "marriages" to others could legally be marriages.

When Brigham Young was sued for divorce by Ann Eliza Webb, Briggy's defense was that his relationship with her was not legally a marriage, but was an "ecclesiastical arrangement." The fact that Joseph Smith used the term "marriage" in enticing his victims into illegal, illicit, adulterous relationships with him doesn't make them marriages and no discussion of the age at which people normally got married applies in this case.

It was not the accepted norm for married men to secretly entice younger women into sexual relationships. That's the relevant point.

The age of consent is a relevant issue whether Smith married the girl or seduced her and I agree they were not married.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 09:54AM by bona dea.

Not too many things to separate him from David Koresh.

"Section 132, of the Doctrine and Covenants, is the retroactive "official" 1843 "revelation" by Joseph Smith for the practice of polygamy. It was officially "given" to him ten years after he had secretly taken his first plural wife, Fannie Alger, about 17 years of age, in 1833 (Origins of Power, p. 619, D. Michael Quinn), and 12 years after he attempted to seduce 12 year old Mary Elizabeth Rollins in 1831 (Emma Hale Smith, p. 65). Joseph did later marry Mary Elizabeth, in February 1842 (after he had made two more attempted persuasions towards a secret marriage), while she was still the wife of Adam Lightner, thus making bigamy part of the Law of Polygamy."

http://www.exmormon.org/pattern/josemma.htm
Marriage of Joseph Smith and Emma Hale

Also, pedophiles carefully choose their victims. The prominence of JS may have made it difficult for him look for more child brides. He kept his polygamy, and polyandry secret. Even though he was a narcissist, I think he was aware of the consequences of polygamy being made public. Surely he knew his situation would be exponentially worse if members, and nonmembers knew he was "married" to children.

The Kimballs were already very loyal, so his "marriage" to a 14 year old was a workable situation for a pedophile. Her father was an accomplice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 02:34AM by atheist&happy:-).

He was a pig. The positives are that he could tell a very good story and he knew how to wrestle (apparently) and dance.

"Lecherous Scoundrel, Charlatan, Debauched Adulterer and Defiler of Young Maidens."

But that was too long to put on a business card, so JS preferred to use the title "Prophet, Seer and Revelator."

Given the way he worked the PS&R gimmick, in Joe's case PS&R pretty much became synonymous with LSCDA&DYM.

An'that's as actual an' factual as it needs to be.

anony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

Try using your own handle. That way you seem less like a troll. For the last time, no one is defending JS. Pedophiles have sex with prepubescent children. There is no evidence that HMK was prepubescent. She was almost 15. The age of consent was lower then and therefore having sex with a 15 year old was not statuatory rape.NEITHER OF THOSE FACT MAKE IT RIGHT. Got it yet? I hope so because this is getting boring.

As Baura notes, "sexual predator" is a more apt description of Smith.


But a different question: what basis existed for the mormon community to perform marriage rites in the first place - was it nothing more than common-law marriage?

In 19th century America, who was entitled to "make a marriage"?


That is, the _first_ marriage; subsequent marriages had no legal standing, I assume.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 12:23PM by 3X.

Only perverts generate lies to the extent of claiming prophethood to generate such extensive sexual opportunities the way Joe did.

He was probably also a pedophile which is one category of pervert.

I think most perverts fit into more than one deviant category.