|Submited on :||Tue, 13th of Nov 2018 - 17:27:39 PM|
|Post ID :||9wr2on|
|Post Name :||t3_9wr2on|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2r0gj|
Prophets and youngest ‘brides’ Joseph smith(37)>HMK (14)
Brigham Young(45)>Lucy Bigelow(16)
John Taylor(78)>Josephine Roueche(26)
Wilford Woodruff(46)>Emma Smoot(15)
Lorenzo Snow(57)>Sarah Ephramina(15)
Orson Pratt(57)>Margaret Graham(16)
Joseph smith(37)>HMK (14)
Nancy Winchester was also 14. I want to make sure we don't sell Joseph short. /s
We don't know the date of Nancy's polygamous marriage to Smith. We can't positively say she was 14.
She was 15 years, ten months old when Smith was killed. Not that a few months matter one way or another, 15 is still a child.
Nancy was 13 years 9 months old when she joined the Relief Society (which was composed of many of Joe's polygamous wives) the same month John Bennett was excommunicated - she was certainly aware of the reasons for his excommunication and his charges against Joseph of polygamy.
Nancy was 14 years 2 months old and a member of the relief society when the RS released its denunciation of polygamy - even while many of its members were already polygamous wives.
After the Nauvoo temple was dedicated the then 16 year old Nancy was sealed to Joseph Smith with Heber C Kimball as proxy, and then married for time as a plural wife of Kimball.
tldr: in my view, it seems logical that Nancy Winchester was likely still 14 when Joseph Smith sealed himself to her. However, even if she was 15 when Joseph did the deed, she would have likely been just 15 and a few months as Joseph stopped taking wives later in the year of 1843.
We don't know the date of Nancy's polygamous marriage to Smith.
This is true, but it's hard to be absolutely certain about a number of Joseph's "marriages." Regarding Nancy Winchester, her "marriage" would need to be before August 10, 1843, in order for her to be 14 years old at the time of "marriage."
Nancy's family was in Nauvoo by 1842. Joseph obviously knew who Nancy was. Nancy was participating in Relief Society by May of 1842.
Joseph "married" 13 women (including Helen Mar Kimball) between March and July of 1843. He then chilled out a bit and "married" Melissa Lott (age 19) in September 1843 and Fanny Young (age 56) in November of 1843. The consensus is that he stopped taking additional "wives" after Fanny Young (November 1843).
The question is, was it more likely that Nancy was part of the flurry of 13 marriages (she would make this # 14, if she was included) that occurred before she turned 15 on August 10th, or would she have been after August 10th?
We will likely never know. However, playing the odds would suggest that Joseph included Nancy in his flurry of marriages (14 total?) before August of 1843. Because after the summer of 1843, it's almost like he changed his mind on polygamy. He only took 2 more wives after the summer of 1843. It's also interesting to note that Helen Mar Kimball was the summer of 1843. So, we know that he would have had no reservations about gobbling up another 14 year old (Nancy) during this time.
Regardless of whether Nancy was 14 or 15, Joseph Smith is a sicko.
My dad is a widowed 74 year old. The idea of him marrying someone in her 20's is repulsive. To him, too.
When I was 37, the thought of marrying a 14 year old girl was absolutely sickening to me.
Joseph and I apparently didn't see eye to eye on this issue.
Whats also disturbing is Men being sealed to other men.....or the Law of Adoption
practiced in Latter Day Saint temples between 1846 and 1894 in which men who held the priesthood were sealed in a father–son relationship to other men who were not part of nor even distantly related to their immediate nuclear family.
On 23 February 1847, Young "went to see Joseph" in a dream and Young said that he spoke with Smith about the law of adoption. Manuscript History of Brigham Young, February 23, 1847
On April 6, 1862, Young said of the law of adoption: "By this power men will be sealed to men back to Adam, completing and making perfect the priesthood from this day to the winding up scene. Journal of Discourses, volume 9, page 269.
It is reported by Young's grandson, Kimball Young (chairman of the Department of Sociologyat Northwestern University) that Brigham Young stated in a letter that there will be a future time "when men would be sealed to men in the priesthood in a more solemn ordinance than that by which women were sealed to men. Young, Kimball (1954), Isn’t One Wife Enough?, New York: Holt, pp. 278–280, OCLC 837920
Wilford Woodruff, stated in August 1896 that between 1843 and 1894 he "officiated in adopting 96 men to men". Woodruff also stated that by 1885, he had "had 45 persons adopted to me". Woodruff recorded in his diary that when the sealing rooms of the St. George Temple were dedicated in January 1877, Woodruff—who was the temple president—adopted two couples to Brigham Young.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 1833-1898, typescript, edited by Scott G. Kenney, 1985, Volume 9, page 408.
Wilford Woodruff’s Journal 1833-1898, typescript, edited by Scott G. Kenney, 1985, Volume 8, Page 352
Diary of Wilford Woodruff, 22 March, 1877.
Men being sealed to men? BLASPHEMY. I can feel Oaks' stomach turning from here.
Just take your vitamins and get some sleep because you haven't seen anything of what's to come. /s
3rd Anointing: Being sealed to Joseph Smith as his son.
between 1846 and 1894
You left out the most interesting part: that they quit doing this the same time that they started encouraging family sealings and genealogy. They founded the Utah Geneology society in 1895 or 6.
from this day to the winding up
which makes sense I guess. The "winding up" was supposed to be in 1890 or 1891, so it would make sense to get rid of this practice after that prophecy failed.
You just commented on a post about pedophilia (the link discusses marriages to 11 year old girls!) to say "what is also disturbing is... [dynastic adoptions of adult men to adult men]."
I don't understand how this is disturbing, let alone how it is disturbing on the same level as the main topic of this post. Weird? Sure. Disturbing like religious pedophilia? Umm, no, definitely that's a no.
I thought it was relevant since the post was about sealings. I'm guessing there was pedophilia among young boys as well. I don't think that time period was immune to that. Although I can't find any info on how old the men were, It does state that they were young men being sealed to other men, and that the young men were sealed like son's would be to a Father.
The post primarily discussed marriages, not sealings. There was less connection between the two back then.
There is no evidence that adoptive sealings were sexual. This is taking modern connotations and shoving them into the part where they don't belong.
Typically both men were of age, and often quite a bit past that. Importantly, it was vanishingly rare for someone with an LDS father to be adoptively sealed to another man, and it was also vanishingly rare for a man to be adoptively sealed while receiving any kind of financial support from his biological father.
In the 1800s, there were not many financially independent 11 year old boys in Utah with non-LDS fathers. There simply wasn't opportunity for the kinds of things you're assuming happened. And even if there were ritual adoptions of children, it's a huge jump to imagine that the adoptions were some kind of religious euphemism for sex.
The idea that adoptive sealings reflected pederasty is bizarre and literally has no academic support whatever.
I wonder if the person you're responding to meant "interesting" rather than "disturbing."
Brian Hales commented on the post. It’s crazy to read his mental gymnastics in action. He immediately invalidated anything said by a critic of the church, calling then biased. He throws out doubt wherever possible. But seems to be just fine with the facts that are disturbing.
Yes I agree. It’s disturbing that he’s not disturbed.
At the beginning he doubts the research because it claims 40 something wives rather than 30 something. Straining at a gnat (no credible source for the 40) but ignoring the mountain (30 freaking wives is already an impeachable offence).
He makes money off of rationalizing away sexual predation. Sick sick man.
Can’t stand Hales.
He blames it on a few bad apples.
I think his justification about the Church not being at blame is stupid, the church is the people, and the people are the church.
Also, this argument could be made in defending Adoph Hitler. His signiture exists no where on the Final Solution documents for exterminating the Jews. So obviously, Hitler is innocent, and it was the evil other guys who screwed it up. Which is reprehensible, but leave Hitler out of it.
It is interesting to me to see that they did recognize pedophilia back then and strongly punish it. It makes me think that contrary to our usual arguments about 14 year Olds possibly not menstruating back then, JS's girls must have appeared more womanly than a 10 year old at least.
Where in the linked article did you see this? I am seeing rather the opposite, that girls as young as 11 were getting married in Utah and that while the outsiders found it deplorable, to the members the big concern was was not the girl's age but rather whether the man had married her first.
Good point. I just was amazed they punished the guy earlier for 10 year Olds.
a patriarch of polygamy, pedophilia, and incest, all sanctioned by church leaders.
This is fucking heavy.
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW ABOUT THIS???
OP: It's going to be good and heartbreaking
Me: *wrings hands* "Good. Good."
Why can't I see my comment anymore? Or those that reply?
From Brian Hales defence, quoting Brigham Young to show that he did not support super young wives: " 'I don't object to your taking sisters named in your letter to wife if they are not too young and their parents and your president and all connected are satisfied' "
Talk about a tone deaf defense. So glad that as long as they are too young (to function as wombs) and their parents and the proper priesthood authority give permission, it's totally fine to TAKE those sisters to wife. Yeah, that Brigham Young really had the moral high ground on this issue. No thought to what the wombs, I mean girls, wanted. Sigh. Please tell me again how this church wasn't and isn't completely misogynistic. Puke. Brian Hales, you and Eric Hawkins sure would get along.
Also, if you look at someone like Ann Gordge who was basically sold to John D. Lee as a teen so at worst her parents wouldn't get murdered by the Danites, and at best because her parents needed good favor.
"If all connected are satisfied" takes on a somber tone. Of course Ann's reactions would be seen as satisfied instead of as compliance for survival.
Ann would talk about this year's later and though her narrative is very unreliable, what is very true is that she is a victim of trauma and her narrative is a trauma narrative. Her behavior from the beginning was doomed to fail.
Too often the church sets us up to fail and then blames us when we do, and that's what happened to poor Ann, one of my fave characters ever in Mormon history.
JD Lee was also doomed from long before anyone had heard of the Fancher party, and his narrative is a trauma narrative. I don't say this to excuse the fact that he was a murderer, or to try to better his legacy in some way, but to illustrate that there are a LOT of hurt people hurting people in the Utah Reformation era. Some of these hurt people were relatively benign, perhaps "only" being vindictive toward a sister-wife, while others did utterly terrible things, such as mass murder in Lee's case and child rape in the case of apparently very many.
This topic is a straw man. Men of all Faith groups married young for a very long time. Now if it is still happening then that is a problem.
Hell, I've got catholic uncles in Spain who were in their 20's and married young girls in their teens back in the mid 1900's. It was a different time.
A 20 year old marrying a 15 year old as his only wife is VERY different than a 40 year old man taking a 15 year old as his plural wife. You understand that right?
The claim that that prophets are acting as a product of their times (in regards to age at marriage age or race issues, etc) has one major flaw. Supposedly the god that is the same yesterday, today, and forever somehow didn’t think it important enough to reveal to his prophet that the power dynamic between these partners is problematic. So we have a god that is willing to reveal the cost of the Book of Mormon and the name of his church, and baptismal practices, priesthood ordinances, but fails to clearly speak to his prophet about sexual consent, racial and sexual equality, etc. etc.
The power dynamics between a teenage girl and a man claiming that the exaltation of herself and her posterity is guaranteed if she marries him - this is a power differential that amounts to coercion under modern thinking. Would a just God really want modern people to have faith that a prophet who appears to be a predator by modern standards actually had a direct line of revelation with God. When God was revealing so many things to his prophets (including financial matters to support Joesph) why would God remain silent in humanitarian issues? That doesnt fit with New Testament Jesus.
Writing off behavior or thinking as a product of the time doesn’t work if you are claiming prophets have direct line revelation from God.
The church’s attempt to underplay the age of his 14 year old bride was instrumental in my seeing the deceit the TSCC still perpetrates.
I understand your argument but I think you are applying it from an angle that if a man is in direct commune with God then he should be perfect. Whether he be mormon...muslim...buddhist... or hindu. The fact if the matter is that no man is perfect. In any religion. In any country. In any culture. In any capacity. So the point is exhaustive. It's dead weight. It's not very moving. It lacks luster. It's not compelling.
I've been ex mo for 4 years and I'm tired of this brain busting discovery. sarcasm implied
The argument is like an eminem song. It's worth is only attributed to its shock value.
It lacks depth.
What's more interesting is the multiple 1st vision accounts that have significant theological implications. The blatant plaigerism of the bible. The sinister nature of the PRESENT DAY TSCC that peddles modern racism, elitism, and leaves people in the dark to struggle with their hurts, habits, and hangups.
Like really? The dude was a weirdo, are we still surprised every time someone posts something like this? Time to dig deeper.
But anyways...I guess that is too much to propose as it is aparant by the amount of down votes I am getting.
I don’t expect “perfection” from religious leaders. I expect “not a sexual predator” and “not a racist” from a man of any religion that claims that he is an oracle for a loving, perfect God. I guess ultimately you and I share different views of perfection.
We dont differ on perfection. We differ on the idea that ultimately no one is perfect, especially liars.
Obviously, Joseph was not an Oracle of a perfect God....he was a blatant liar and plaigerizer. So it doesnt surprise me he was such a terrible shit bag in other areas of his life.
If it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck, then it's probably just a duck. Now why would so many people, after knowing the truth of this duck, still worship this ducks religion?
Hell, I've got catholic uncles in Spain who were in their 20's and married young girls in their teens back in the mid 1900's. It was a different time.
Dare you compare the One True Church on the Face of the Earth to The Whore of Babylon?
I can quantifiabld to state that it was not an unusual proposition to marry young women in the history of the world.
Just as I can quantifiable to state that it was not unusual to ride horse before humanity created the first combustible engine.
Sometimes I think we get all caught up in less meaningful details when the more compelling arguments against the church stand on more solid ground in regards to lies and false documents and blatant biblical forgery.