Technically speaking, his youngest confirmed victims were 14 years old when he had sex with them, thus technically, it could be argued that he was not a pedophile, because they had already started puberty. It's still disgusting, but if you use the definition of pedophile to mean someone who has sex with prepubescent children, he can technically escape the label. On the other hand, that still makes him a rapist, and a rapist of children, so I can understand folks wanting to use that label.

What we do know is that Joseph Smith, at around the age of thirty, willingly used his position of power and authority in the church, to pressure girls as young as 14 years of age to have sex with him. Other then the gender of his victims, this is basically the same thing Jerry Sandusky did to his victims. It's rape, plane and simple, and rather or not it was recognized by the laws of that time, as such, it's still recognizable as such.

Joseph Smith is also on the record as telling his victims that God would kill him, if he did not have sex with them. Interesting enough it is super common for sexual predators to tell their victims that they, the predator, will suffer great bodily harm, or even death, if the victim does not cooperate with them.

While I really don't care which label we use to describe Smith, I do think the debate is important, as a means of bringing attention to Smith's sick crimes against minors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2013 07:35AM by forbiddencokedrinker.

Oh, come one FCD, we all know that they lived by a different moral standard then than we do now. It's frontier morality! I tell you, we are the immoral ones in these last days. They, living their frontier moral standards are the holy prophets!

don't you get this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT2FZurEQec

"Foster, myself [Keller], and Smith find Joseph's marriages to 10 teenagers within the norms of statistics and inherited biological and legal traditions in Joseph's environment."

http://goodreasonblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-apologetics-dont-really-help.html

I like the bit about redefining all the words. Such as "normal".

At around the age of thirty?

Joseph Smith was 37 years old when he married 14 year-old Helen Mar Kimball.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here:

I would bet my rent that JS sexually molested little girls years before he entered the spotlight.

Prolly the 8 year old farmer's daughter next door...


He's still a 'pedophile' in my mind.

I have a testimonkey of it....

Not little girls, farm animals.

1) It was common in the culture he grew up in and,
2) If you read his confession of his sins prior to forming the church, molesting farm animals fits into that confession.

Oh please both let this be true, and that there be a link.

Thank you, I wasn't sure of his exact age at this time. I guess I should have said near the age of 40, since that would have been closer.

Is doubtless more accurate, and I've settle on calling him a sexual predator in the same mold as Jim Jones or David Koresh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

As the old psychologist said in clinical rounds one morning, "My professional opinion is this guy is f***ed up."

Okay, I'm moving on and going back to discussing DNA and Mormon Apologists. This isn't a subject one wants to acquire a reputation for expertise in...

Cabdriver confession: I stole those last two, but I'm certain the guys I got them from would approve.

^Yup^

Adulterer or fornicator, those words are good enough.

JS was plenty sleazy and immoral enough without us accusing him of being a pedofile.

I could have had some sympathy for his sexual cheating and lying to Emma, had his sexual partners been adult women who threw themselves at him, like groupies throng a rock star.

But that was NOT the case. He pursued women who had no interest in him, and used lies and manipulation to achieve his own satisfaction.

I say no to "pedofile" but a stong yes to "sexual predator".

Puberty started much later for girls back then. Average age of menses was about 15 due to differences in diet and lack of hormones given to food animals.

We'll never know if his 14 yo victims had any hips or breasts yet, or any desire for sex. Or if he noticed or cared.

In today's world he would be considered a Pedophile and a big pervert, even if he married them first before intercourse. In the the 1800's it was considered OKAY to marry a girl of 14 or 15 years old. One of my my great-grandmothers was 15 when she got married to great-grandpa who was 10 years her senior and it was socially acceptable and even expected in America at that time and age.

Others have posted on this topic, and gone through a lot of marriage records from that time. Average age at first marriage was closer to 20. Marriages at 16 were rare, but not unheard of. Marriages at 14 were EXTREMELY RARE...almost unheard of, even "on the frontier". As Heresy mentioned, this would have been prepubescent.

Burnned is passing on the "stock party line," which has been debunked here repeatedly via census records.

Second, the marriages that did involve teens at the time were invariably between two people nearly the same age. Recall that Joseph Smith was 37...

i was talking about a non-mormon perspective, my great-grandma and was never mormon and noone in my family was mormon that I knew of.... Maybe it would be wise to check records OUTSIDE of Mormonlands about girls Marrying 15 in the 1800's or even in the early 1900's..... Think outiside of "Utah". I'm not supporting what J.S. did, if it was Just OnE girl he Married and stayed with.... what's the issue? But I know he did a lot of unacceptable stuff...

What the others are saying is that there have been a number of threads on average and national ages for marrying, and age differences between partners.

While there were young marriages, these were the exception rather than the rule, and mostly were between two young people. And were actual MARRIAGES. Not, effectively, secret concubinage.

I think an important point is that Joseph was supposed to be a prophet of God, Moral relativity should not apply.

For example, to argue that it was OK to marry 14 year-olds because it was legal and some marriages did occur back then (less than 1%), would imply that Mormons will be perfectly happy with having gay-married priesthood leaders when it becomes a social norm and 3-5% of all marriages are between gay couples.

Do you think that will happen? Are Mormons happy to let social norms dictate sexual ethics? In that case gay marriage and teenage masturbation are perfectly fine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Still strikes me as pathologically perverted, no matter the label.

Hebephile vs Ephebophile?

The key is that it is the PREFERENCE of the person. While he had a few early adolescent partners, the largest demographic (30% ish) were the mid-late adolescents, so based on apparent preference, he is an ephebophile. But not an exclusive ephebophile.

I tend to think that his targeting of other men's wives was basic alpha-monkey behavior wherein he was displaying his power or superiority over the men. This would be supported by accounts that once he had agreement/submission from the man, he didn't go through with the deed (as in the Kimball family case).

Legally, at least now, children cannot have consensual sex, so it's all rape and all pedophilia.

In some states the age of consent is 14.
However the buzz word is consent and it appearas that many of his conquests were the result of coersion not consent

Whenever the age of consent is under 18, it is conditionally. For example, in some states a 14 year old can consent, if the partner is under twenty. In my state, a 16 year old can consent to sex with a partner under the age of 20, and a 17 can consent to a partner under the age of 21.

^^^Exactly.

Remember--the preferred resolution to teen pregnancy back then was to find the father and "invite" him to a shotgun wedding.

If the guy wasn't the girl's teenage lover but rather, say, a middle aged weirdo who cornered her in the barn, I imagine there would only be a shotgun, and no wedding.

Or a castration, followed by a tar and feathering.

Child rapists ARE pedophiles !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Joseph Smith is a sexual predator, there should be no doubt about it .

JS grave stone would read:

Hear lies JS a sexual predictor...this is his current and final address.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2013 08:03PM by oldklunker.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,997592



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2013 08:13PM by steve benson.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2013 09:42PM by steve benson.

Whether it was statutory rape or pedophilia depends on what the age of consent was in the state and at the time the act took place. I do not know what that age was in the states where JS "married" the girls, but in some states it was as young as 10. I think.we need to be careful of throwing such terms around unless we know what the law was. It was still disgusting and still adultery but the question is what the law said.

Rape is rape, no matter what the laws of the land say. Statutory rape is not about a person over an arbitrary age having sex with someone under that age, otherwise it even wouldn't exist as a law. The reason it is rape, is because an adult, through their experiences, has the knowledge to manipulate, and guilt a child into having sex in ways that another teen is simply not capable of doing. It is emotional blackmail. Even without the age difference, using a ploy like, "An Angel with a flaming sword is going to kill me if you don't have sex with me," to a believing person, is manipulation on such a level, to make the act rape, rather or not victim is a minor.