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 is truly wonderful how often God is just a product of the time. Makes me wonder why we need to worship a God defined by an organized religion at all? After all the organized religion defines God's wants and desires by the current social norms. I would be very interested in reading some of your pre-Victorian literature which shows how common it was for married men of 34 to secretly marry themselves to 15 year old girls. Maybe I missed it, but I do not remember seeing Charles stepping out on Caroline to marry Nelly Olsen. I'm sure that just shows my ignorance on the subject.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
Maybe you ought to just read my response to C.H. Bourne above where I discuss this topic and then you can [one more crack like that and we'll can you].
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Morley wrote:So, you are suggesting that the legality of marriage was not important in 1840?
Not to Joseph Smith and co, fo course. The Church was small and somewhat isolated. As a claimed recepticle for God there was the atittude that they were above the law. In this there is a great difference.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Morley wrote:So, you are suggesting that the legality of marriage was not important in 1840?
That is actually a good question.
The State of Ohio refused to license Mormon Elders for marriage, a little piece of discrimination which really rankled Joseph Smith. I suspect that led to a lot of marriages in fact only in the church, which also led to summary ecclesiastical dissolutions when wanted.
Yahoo Bot wrote:The State of Ohio refused to license Mormon Elders for marriage, a little piece of discrimination which really rankled Joseph Smith. I suspect that led to a lot of marriages in fact only in the church, which also led to summary ecclesiastical dissolutions when wanted.
Perhaps the State of Ohio figured out what Joseph was going to do with "marriage".
Anyone who was married prior to joining the church would have known they had a valid marriage. Others, maybe not so much.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Yahoo Bot wrote:The State of Ohio refused to license Mormon Elders for marriage, a little piece of discrimination which really rankled Joseph Smith. I suspect that led to a lot of marriages in fact only in the church, which also led to summary ecclesiastical dissolutions when wanted.
Perhaps the State of Ohio figured out what Joseph was going to do with "marriage".
Anyone who was married prior to joining the church would have known they had a valid marriage. Others, maybe not so much.
Most State governments have a narrow view of wife swapping and swinging as marriage.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Yahoo Bot wrote:Maybe you ought to just read my response to C.H. Bourne above where I discuss this topic and then you can [one more crack like that and we'll can you].
Not sure what you were trying to say, maybe you should slow down, take a deep breath, count to 10 and try again. Also not sure what I said that could have possibly pushed your button.
Yahoo Bot wrote: I'm not one to say there is going to be evidence of horses in America someday.
.
Wondering why you feel there will not be evidence of horses in America someday? Unless your actual belief is that the book is not literal.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. Bruce R. McConkie
Yahoo Bot wrote:Maybe you ought to just read my response to C.H. Bourne above where I discuss this topic and then you can [one more crack like that and we'll can you].
Just as a heads up, the bracketed text is a yahoo bot joke and not a moderator note.
Willy Law wrote:Not sure what you were trying to say, maybe you should slow down, take a deep breath, count to 10 and try again. Also not sure what I said that could have possibly pushed your button.
Here's what I think. I think you should [edited: no personal attacks] and [edited: no additional personal attacks.] Further, [no secondary attacks, either]. Finally, [no concluding attacks.]