Question for Gaz...

[_harmony]

I think this information is relevent since the culture of the church was very much british due to the heavy influx of converts.

If the church had been restored in England, you could make a case. It wasn't. It was restored under laws that weren't English, that made no pretense of being English.

Try again.

[_Yoda]

Based on malnutrition and other factors, females actually developed much later than they do today. a 12-14 year old girl in the 1800's would typically look like an 7-9 year old girl today from a puberty standpoint.

So "if" Mary was about 12-14, that would equate her to about what? Three of four?

You're taking my statement out of context. I wasn't discussing Mary. I was discussing pre-pubescent girls in the US in the 1800's.

I have no idea what the factors were surrounding puberty and menarche of girls in Israel during Jesus' lifetime or before.

[_Gazelam]

Harmony,

If the church had been restored in England, you could make a case. It wasn't. It was restored under laws that weren't English, that made no pretense of being English.

Try again.

The Church was restored in a wilderness frontier enviorment, and it pretty much established its own culture, which would have consisted of the dominant people group in that place.

Would you care to review the missionary efforts of the early saints in Britain?

[_Yoda]

Harmony,

If the church had been restored in England, you could make a case. It wasn't. It was restored under laws that weren't English, that made no pretense of being English.

Try again.

The Church was restored in a wilderness frontier enviorment, and it pretty much established its own culture, which would have consisted of the dominant people group in that place.

Would you care to review the missionary efforts of the early saints in Britain?

The dominant group in place at that time were puritanical Protestants who were horrified at the thought of polygamy.

Edited to add--You also have not addressed the fact that it was rare to find girls going through puberty at the age of 14.

[_harmony]

The Church was restored in a wilderness frontier enviorment, and it pretty much established its own culture, which would have consisted of the dominant people group in that place.

Who were not English. Who were not subject to English law. Who were subject to US law, which was not English.

Would you care to review the missionary efforts of the early saints in Britain?

Would you care to stay on the subject of the thread?

[_Ray A]

You're taking my statement out of context. I wasn't discussing Mary. I was discussing pre-pubescent girls in the US in the 1800's.

I have no idea what the factors were surrounding puberty and menarche of girls in Israel during Jesus' lifetime or before.

But shouldn't we, as diligent citizens of many nations under God's crystal fireball called the sun, be interested in truth, indeed "all truth", and the conscientious duty we have to ALL men and women of ALL ages (sorry IN all ages), to expose chicanery and deception?

What if Joseph was a pedophile? What if GOD was a pedophile? Shouldn't he be considered for prosection under the laws of Illinois?

Why pick on Joseph and exclude his God?

[_Gazelam]

Liz,
To be fair, your origianl post was correct. Early twenties was in fact the normal average age of marriage in most communities. That being said it was not unheard of for marriages to occur at a younger age, as my earlier post established.

I also believe that Josephs sexual relations with his various wives differed greatly. I strongly doubt that Joseph consumated the marriage to Brighams sister. I also doubt that Joseph consumated the marriages to other mens wives. I have no problem with him being sealed to them in the eternities. If I did find out he slept with them it wouldent shake my testimony or anything, I would just find it odd.

[_Danna]

I have just found a very interesting repository of data on menarche. It looks like early data is not too reliable, with the possible exception of a Norwegian study:




A german study (my german is not too good - so I'll take the blogger's word for it) may also be more reliable than many English language sources, which may be overestimates:

Researchers noted the trend 140 years ago. In 1860 the average menarche happened at 16.6 years, in 1920 at 14.6, in 1950 at 13.1 and 1980, 12.5 years.

So the English language retrospective estimate (Tanner) is 17 years, but the Europeans are 15.6 - 16.6 years.

The age distributions around the average are pretty tight though. Every study I have seen puts the standard distribution at less than a year (which means that two thirds of girls will be within one year either side of the average, and 95% within two years either side (being very conservative).

The % of girls hitting menarche at 14 would have been in the single figures (at best) , so it is hard to see that that would be a very acceptable marrigeable age - aside from shotgun weddings.

[_Danna]

This is the traditional view:



The European figures only go back to 1860, so my guesstimates are pretty conservative if the trend continues back through the 19th century.

The original analyst thought the 19th Century was an aberration in history though, with Medieval and ancient figures close to our own. I am skeptical though - data from that far back is likely to dodgy and related to the upper classes only.

[_Yoda]

Thanks for the data, Dana. This confirms the studies that I had read as well.

My point, Gaz, is that many of us, as believing TBM's were deceived into thinking that girls being married at 14 was common place. And, based on the fact that today, particularly in the US, girls reach puberty at a very early age, it is not a stretch to the imagination that this might be the case.

However, when you look at facts, you see that girls were actually not even hitting puberty until much later during that time frame.

Let me ask you this. You have stated that Joseph was simply "inquisitive" when he asked God about polygamy. When God told him, not only to live it, but who he should pick as his plural wives, don't you think that Joseph would have been, at least likely to "inquire" why it would be appropriate for a 30+ year old man to take a child to wife?

I also believe that Josephs sexual relations with his various wives differed greatly. I strongly doubt that Joseph consumated the marriage to Brighams sister. I also doubt that Joseph consumated the marriages to other mens wives. I have no problem with him being sealed to them in the eternities. If I did find out he slept with them it wouldent shake my testimony or anything, I would just find it odd.

You would find it odd......

Would you find it equally "odd" if it was your wife commanded to sleep with multiple partners? Would it be more than "odd" if the tables were turned?

What if Joseph was a pedophile? What if GOD was a pedophile? Shouldn't he be considered for prosection under the laws of Illinois?

Why pick on Joseph and exclude his God?

Ray, I don't believe that God, in fact, re-instituted polygamy. My feeling is that it was false revelation, and Joseph flatly got it wrong. Brigham got a lot of things wrong, but that's another thread. LOL

If God did, indeed, want polygamy reestablished, and it was his intent to have polygamy carried out in the manner it was, then yes, that is not the kind of God I want to worship.

My feeling is that man made such a mess of polygamy that, in the hereafter, God will not break up families. Those who choose to live in plural family situations will be able to, but certainly not forced to. Everyone will have an opportunity to have an eternal partner of their own. I certainly do not believe Brigham Young's BS about polygamy being a requirement to achieve the highest level of exaltation...nor do I believe that Jesus had more than one wife....or that God had sex with Mary.

I'm bringing in a quote that Marg made on Kevin's thread. This is from another website which she researched, but it is accurate, as far as the assessment of section D&C 132 is concerned.
(And, yes, Marg....it looks like lightning may strike in the same place twice...we're agreeing on something...LOL)

The Mormon Law of Sarah states that a man's first wife was given the right to consent to, or prohibit, her husband's wishes to marry additional wives. 1 It was derived from one of the sacred Mormon books, the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Further, she could select who these additional wives would be.

However, there were serious consequences if a wife refused to consent to additional wives. In Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132:64, God threatens any wife with destruction if she does not consent:

"And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things (plural wives), then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her..." 2

In the next verse, Section 132:65, God states that if the wife does not consent, then she is considered a transgressor, and the husband is exempt from the law of Sarah:

"Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife." 2

So, the Law of Sarah was really a type of Hobson's Choice. 3 It gave the first wife the right of consenting to, or refusing, her husband's request to marry additional wives:

If she consented, then her and her husband's previously monogamous marriage would become polygamous.
If she refused consent, then God would destroy her. Even if she survived, her husband was considered exempted from the Law, and could proceed with the additional marriages. Again, her marriage would become polygamous.
So, in practice, the first wife was expected to humbly accept new wives into the family. She had no power to stop it.

Gaz....This is exactly why I feel that D&C 132 is NOT of God. I don't believe that a benevolent Heavenly Father could really want this.