How to Deal with Joseph Smith's Youngest Wives

[_moksha]

There is an article to this subject at Common Consent. http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/01/30/a-very-short-post-on-how-to-deal-with-joseph-smiths-youngest-plural-wives/

I have to disagree with the solution of altering their birth dates. In dealing with teens, my thought is that the easiest way to prevent problems with all these underage wives is to require them to remain in Middle and High Schools, especially the two 14 year olds.

Staying in school helps solve many problems that would otherwise arise when these kids are on the street, stairwells or in the broom closet.

Responsible counter positions are welcomed.

[_bcspace]

The solution is to know that there is little or no evidence for many of the women to whom Joseph Smith was sealed for an actual marriage relationship.

[_Bazooka]

The solution is to know that there is little or no evidence for many of the women to whom Joseph Smith was sealed for an actual marriage relationship.

Which would mean Joseph was in breach of the commandment God gave directly to him regarding it.
(see D&C 132)

[_bcspace]

Which would mean Joseph was in breach of the commandment God gave directly to him regarding it.
(see D&C 132)

Not necessarily considering the eternal nature of the commandment as Lucy Walker herself pointed out. You're forgetting that the promise of the continuation of the seeds is also in the resurrection according to 132 and that this earth is the CK for it's inhabitants.

[_son of Ishmael]

The solution is to know that there is little or no evidence for many of the women to whom Joseph Smith was sealed for an actual marriage relationship.

Yep, and there is no evidence that Joseph Smith wiped his butt either so I guess that means he never did it.

[_moksha]

People did not keep record of private deeds, especially when such signs and signals as a wink and a nod would suffice.

This was all ratified by an angel ahead of time, so there is no need for prudery or Cotton Mather.

[_bcspace]

Yep, and there is no evidence that Joseph Smith wiped his butt either so I guess that means he never did it.

Agreed. No evidence for is not evidence against.

But we all know that Joseph Smith pooped like everyone else. And we have a pretty good idea that Joseph Smith did not have a co-habitation/marriage-type of relationship with most of the women he was sealed to. So in this case, the evidence is heavily against any basis for this criticism against Joseph Smith.

[_Droopy]

The solution is to know that there is little or no evidence for many of the women to whom Joseph Smith was sealed for an actual marriage relationship.

Yep, and there is no evidence that Joseph Smith wiped his butt either so I guess that means he never did it.

Brian Hales has done a substantial quantity of historical work on this subject, as well as alleged "polyandry," and the reality is there isn't a shred of empirical, documentary evidence for any critic's historical claims regarding Joseph's supposed bohemian sex life and venal motives.

Plural marriage is and remains biblical, that's what we call "the bottom line." The youth of some of the woman involved in Joseph's sealings is cultural, and was common at the time and in antiquity (but would not be practiced now for very good reasons, also cultural in nature).

[_ZelphtheGreat]

The solution is to know that there is little or no evidence for many of the women to whom Joseph Smith was sealed for an actual marriage relationship.

Amazing that you excuse mass bigamy and sexual predation on children so easily.
Having young girls in ones home and then after a few years of grooming, 'marrying' them is classic for a sexual predator.

[_ControlFreak]

I was thinking about this just last night. My wife has never once written in her journal about how good the sex was that night. And she isn't a prudish girl from the 1800s. We've also had unprotected sex hundreds of times without producing offspring. Do we really expect that there had to be children and/or journal entries before we believe Joseph was having sex?

I would say that there is more than enough evidence to show that polygamy was most definitely sexual in nature that we don't need children or notarized statements of how good the sex was before we assume that sex was had by any of the wives if there is even circumstantial evidence. Obviously we can't say that we are 100% sure, but I'd say it's pretty safe to assume based on the rest of the evidence that we do have.