She was upset over marriage at age 14. If it's her religion, that is the reason she needs to know why.

I'm blown away that would come up in seminary and thought it was just some kind of test question on RFM to get people fired up and to call me names as I believe in knowing all sides of the claims. Silly people call that being an apologist, which clearly, it is not.

If this is her heritage and culture, she needs to know their point of view, as well as becoming educated about how lots of religions and societies throughout history marry very young. It would be a good project for her to learn why some use "match makers" (some Jews do, for instance.)

She has a right to know the whole story.
She can find all of it herself on the internet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 12:45PM by SusieQ#1.

Marrying young is common in many areas of the world. That was my point.

However, the bigger point, is she needs to read and understand D&C 132. It's likely that many in her Ward/family are unaware that the temple sealing is the New and Everlasting Covenant which is plurality of wives.

The more she knows the more informed she becomes, the better she can make decisions about her future.

It was very out of the norm for the time and place, but you are as always, defending it like it was a good thing. Would you hand over your 14 year old in exchange for your salvation? Sick.

WinksWinks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was very out of the norm for the time and
> place, but you are as always, defending it like it
> was a good thing. Would you hand over your 14
> year old in exchange for your salvation? Sick.


At no point did I "defend" the marriage of a 14 year old re: Mormobnism. That's just absurd nonsense to claim I did. Did not happen. What is the matter with people? Read carefully, PLEASE!!!


That's not my point at all. My point is for everyone including this young girl, to get well informed! The girl probably knows nothing of D&C 132 which is the basis of the marriages.

I would guess that many parents married in the LDS Temples don't know how it correlates to D&C 132 either.

Get informed. Know what the church really teaches and claims. Knowledge is power. It's that knowledge that led me out of it.

Read informer's post below and get yourself informed. Don't turn this back on me. You keep pushing mormon scripture like there's something to be learned.

I would never go to such a lying institution for facts, why do you think I or this other girl should?
Of course knowledge is power, duh, I'm not a defender of any of their disgusting practices. It is not okay to defend underage marriage just because someone somewhere did it. Not okay.

But a 30-something, already married several times, marrying a 14-year old girl?

What floors me is that his second "wife", Fanny Alger, was what we would call today his "foster daughter". Marrying your 16-year-old foster daughter is a felony.

jerry64 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But a 30-something, already married several times,
> marrying a 14-year old girl?
>
> What floors me is that his second "wife", Fanny
> Alger, was what we would call today his "foster
> daughter". Marrying your 16-year-old foster
> daughter is a felony.

This kind of thing happens in the real world, folks. Certainly we can think of other older men who have married younger girls. In some states it's legal, I am told. Also can marry 1st cousins in some states.

Oh well. People don't all agree. That is why the laws are different in different states.

Never, ever, in the US was it LEGAL to marry more than one person at a time, even in ILL when it was first practiced by the Mormons.

But,people still do it by the thousands. Most are for religious reasons, but a quick check of the Internet can find dozens and dozens of men looking for a second or third wife.

So that makes it right, therefore, the girl should just read D&C 132 and then not fret her pretty little head about it?

You are right. Nothing like using the power of religion for profit. It is washed at SLC. Sat through a recreation of events in SLC. The pict blames BY for polygamy

"She has a right to know the whole story."

completely agree with you there

"I believe in knowing all sides"

also completely agree with you

look, this poor girl has gotten 16 or 17 years worth of only one side of the story - she just got a small taste of the other side of the story

how does more scripture reading and face time with the bishop equate to "knowing all sides" in this case?

it just seems to me that if you meant what you said in the quotes above you would be hoping that girl learns much, much more (about 16 or 17 years worth?) about the other side of the story...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2012 02:17PM by grubbygert.

This is a statement of fact that you, SusieQ#1, and others consistently get WRONG and refuse to correct yourselves regarding. GO LOOK IT UP. It is not that hard to find.

In the West:

ROYALTY married their offspring young, as a function of state. Were early Mormons Royals? NO.

NOBILITY married their offspring young, as a function of power, amassment of fortune, and family alliances. Were early Mormons Nobles? NO.

The LOWEST CLASSES (including LOWER-MIDDLE CLASS) married their DAUGHTERS young because SONS at home equalled more family income, daughters equalled more mouths to feed. Were early Mormons from the lower classes? BY AND LARGE, YES.

The UPPER-MIDDLE and UPPER classes married their daughters OLDER - in their twenties and often into their thirties. Were early Mormons from the middle and upper classes? A FEW, but for the most part, NO.

This information is borne out by HISTORICAL FACT, which I wish you would educate yourself about. Quit muddying the water by babbling on about "how lots of religions and societies throughout history marry very young." That statement means exactly nothing. If you don't care to provide citations to prove 19th century Americans married in their teens AS A GENERAL RULE, then you aren't contributing to anyone's better information.

I made the comment about the world in general -- many places marry their children off very young, including some tribes in Africa. It's an ancient tradition.
But that's not the point of my thread. That's just a side issue and does not apply to how Mormonism functioned in the past or now.

The point is------to get informed ---- know all you can about your religion, in this case: Mormonism; it's history, it's claims,it's scriptures, it's teachings, it's culture, how it developed to what it is today. Knowledge is power.

It's not about stats, or other people's choices, it's about the person knowing what they need to know to make decisions and choices that are in their best interest.

That's the point, I have made it in different ways several times. I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with the importance of getting well informed and gaining in knowledge. That's just Common Sense, in my view. But, like they say, if it was so common, more people would have it! :-)

I agree. But the missionaires con people and dont tell the truth. If they did they would have no investigators and therefore no tithing and free labor

So quit muddying discussions by bringing it up.

And regarding your "point", just how much "truth" do you think anyone is going to get by asking their own church leaders, who are well-known to lie like rugs about all those little things from Mormon history that don't go down well on an empty stomach today?

I wouldn't tell anyone to ask their bishop for the TRUTH about Mormon history.

Study. Get informed. Be knowledgeable.

Would you study the bottom of your foot for weeks on end because someone said the lines are a map to a buried treasure?

Learn enough about the mormon tribe and their destructive rituals to get out. There is no informed "decision." It is simply a discovery that the mormon rituals are a mortal's lies and nothing more.

Make the discovery and leave. If someone wants to study for kicks after that, that's cool. But they are not studying to determine its "truth" or to "make an informed decision."

Discover the lie. Its great you can tolerate being close to people in your life who are seriously deluded. Sometimes in life you have to do that. But these people aren't engaging in meaningful rituals. They've had their individuality sucked out of them by an institution. It's sad. It doesn't mean they aren't interesting, valuable people. But they haven't made any "informed decisions." They've been eviscerated by a sick, perverted institution.

Going to one is a recipe for deception and/or misinformation. I don't see why you think she should go to her bishop for anything except a blessing or a temple recommend. Her parents may or may not actually be informed and willing to discus the issue with her. It's certainly not a given that they know OR understand OR are willing to honestly discus Joseph Smith's actions.

The internet, on the other hand, is a great source for information. Not all information on the internet is valid but it's a wonderful starting point. And there's nothing wrong with her friend talking to her about Joseph Smith either. It's an example of Mormon cult-think that they try to say that only they can talk about their religion. It's a falsehood.

Sometimes, Susie, I wonder if you are a WUM.

I know there are people on this board very grateful for advice you have given them.

But other times......

"Working
Undercover
Mormon" ...?

LOL!

Wind Up Merchant.

But I think informer's definition is pretty good too.

Yeah, insert key word, generate response. Context, being everything, rarely seems to matter.

Who are we to judge?

Some cultures mutilate their daughters' genetalia.

Who are we to judge?

Many cultures have long standing traditions of misogyny.

Isn't that just fascinating?

Interesting even. And utterly outside my "judgement" boundaries.

Of course, NOT judging, NOT speaking out, NOT having a moral stance -- that just encourages such abuse to continue. Kind of like what we're seeing from Republican politicians lately. But it's THEIR culture and who are we to judge?

Yes, who are we to judge someone else's culture? Or their heritage? What about when it's YOUR gentitalia?

You pared it right down to the bone Raptor.

... I answer my work phone with a fair degree of frequency. Always state the company name followed by:

"This is Tim, how can I help you?"

Every once in a while, folks will respond with:

"Hi, Sam, this is so-and-so with such-and-such, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ..."

When it occurs once in a blue moon, I don't worry about it. When it happens ten calls in a row, I figure I need to make some changes.

Considering the frequency of "misunderstanding" the poster in question appears to suffer, one would think ...

Timothy

SusieQ brings a needed balance to this board IMO.

... does not provide needed balance.

Timothy

I'm putting on my flamebook outfit now to point out that no matter how young or in whatever socio-economic group girls came from in the 1800's, Joseph Smith used the pick-up line that GOD COMMANDED him to take these young women as his wife/wives. Yuck.

Running for cover now from flaming angel swords.....

"The point is------to get informed ---- know all you can about your religion, in this case: Mormonism; it's history, it's claims,it's scriptures, it's teachings, it's culture, how it developed to what it is today. Knowledge is power."



I agree Susie. As you know the LDS church does not agree with this where there own history, beleifs and theology are considered.

In fact they dissuade anyone wanting to more fully understand IMO.I ended up in the Bishops office for asking about Negroes being less valiant and having printed some JOD stuff on that LDS topic and asked nicely to keep hushty!! (Mouth shut)! lol

They seem to do there best so that we misunderstand Mormonism and mistake it for some simple Christian type religion and beliefs much like all the others.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Age.htm

The census at the time shows what the common age of women to marry at the time.

It was not 14 or 15 years old.

Joe was a perv and people need to stop pretending he was not.