Yahoo Bot wrote:I also point out, and although this is vastly unpopular in this crowd, that the marriage of a 34 year old to a 15 year old in pre-Victorian times was neither shocking nor exceptional. I've read some in pre-Victorian literature and it seems fairly common. It matters not that she was a domestic or a ward; in what I call the salon literature, these types of marriages were pretty frequent at least in the middle class and above.
It certainly is shocking if the man is already married is it not?
Jason Bourne wrote:It certainly is shocking if the man is already married is it not?
True. If you operate from the presumption that plural marriage is and has always been morally repugnant than no explanation I could offer you would be satisfactory.
Jason Bourne wrote:It certainly is shocking if the man is already married is it not?
True. If you operate from the presumption that plural marriage is and has always been morally repugnant than no explanation I could offer you would be satisfactory.
Certainly the modern church holds that sex outside of legal marriage is repugnant, right?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
True. If you operate from the presumption that plural marriage is and has always been morally repugnant than no explanation I could offer you would be satisfactory.
Certainly the modern church holds that sex outside of legal marriage is repugnant, right?
That's my point. It is morally repugnant to the church except for our guys.
Themis wrote:That's my point. It is morally repugnant to the church except for our guys.
Its morally repugnant when LDS do the same these days, though. I don't think anyone advocates it among LDS. The difference for LDS and Joseph Smith is that to LDS, quite often, Joseph Smith had divine appointment to marry other women. Same with some of the Old Testament folks. Its what it is.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:That's my point. It is morally repugnant to the church except for our guys.
Its morally repugnant when LDS do the same these days, though. I don't think anyone advocates it among LDS. The difference for LDS and Joseph Smith is that to LDS, quite often, Joseph Smith had divine appointment to marry other women. Same with some of the Old Testament folks. Its what it is.
Even so, the church holds that the legality of the marriage is important - secret ceremonies with no legally binding contract don't count.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
stemelbow wrote:Its morally repugnant when LDS do the same these days, though. I don't think anyone advocates it among LDS. The difference for LDS and Joseph Smith is that to LDS, quite often, Joseph Smith had divine appointment to marry other women. Same with some of the Old Testament folks. Its what it is.
The our guys is Joseph and Company. It's ok for them but morally repugnant for anyone else to do it or claim God told then to.
Buffalo wrote:Even so, the church holds that the legality of the marriage is important - secret ceremonies with no legally binding contract don't count.
Yes, but its quite different than it was in 1840. Not only the Church but the populace and culture in which we live.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Even so, the church holds that the legality of the marriage is important - secret ceremonies with no legally binding contract don't count.
Yes, but its quite different than it was in 1840. Not only the Church but the populace and culture in which we live.
So, you are suggesting that the legality of marriage was not important in 1840?
Buffalo wrote:Even so, the church holds that the legality of the marriage is important - secret ceremonies with no legally binding contract don't count.
Yes, but its quite different than it was in 1840. Not only the Church but the populace and culture in which we live.
What's different? Being lawfully wedded was arguably more important then than now.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.