I remember as a teenager in the 1970’s being taught an object lesson in Priesthood one Sunday. The teacher brought in some brownies. He said they were for us. But there was one problem, he had put a little bit of dog poop in the mix. He then asked if we still wanted to eat them. Obviously not. The corollary was that if we went to a movie that had “just a little bit nudity”, it still ruined the whole movie. Or read a book with just a little bit of profanity, it was all bad.
Lest you think I’m making this up, here is somebody bragging about doing a similar lesson in 2011 at Camp Helaman (not sure what that is, but definitely Mormon!)
The lesson here is that even a little bit of something bad ruins the whole thing. But how much bad should we put up within the church and/or our leaders before it ruins the whole thing?
Take Joseph Smith for example. Sure he had a few rough edges, maybe a little contamination here and there, but look at all the good he did. A few shortcomings does not ruin the whole man! Elder Andersen in the Oct 2015 Conference went so far as to ask us to give Joseph Smith a break:
For example, questions concerning the Prophet Joseph Smith are not new. They have been hurled by his critics since this work began. To those of faith who, looking through the colored glasses of the 21st century, honestly question events or statements of the Prophet Joseph from nearly 200 years ago, may I share some friendly advice: For now, give Brother Joseph a break!
Oct 2015 GC, Elder Andersen
Now the Food and Drug Administration allows a certain amount of really gross stuff in our food. Stuff like mouse poop, mold, rat hairs and insect legs. How much gross stuff about our church leaders is acceptable? How many Anti-LGBTQ talks must we listen to from Elder Oaks, how many wives of other men is acceptable for Joseph Smith to marry before the whole thing is ruined? According to the church’s poster above, ever a little bit will wreck the whole thing.
Is this a fair comparison? Does it break down because watching or reading something bad can plant a seed in our mind that can’t be undone? Yet couldn’t you argue that the mental image of Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl (almost 15) has planted a memory in your mind that can’t be undone?
What do you think?
Wheat & Tares 
“even a little bit will ruin the whole thing” is an example of the kind of all-or-nothing, true-or-fraud thinking sometimes promoted by Church leaders who have insufficiently thought the matter through. That sort of thinking would require that they throw out the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants, at least. It may be as foolish to measure the Church by that standard as it was of those leaders to articulate it in the first place.
Young Women were taught that they were the cupcake. They were represented by that consumable product.
YW were taught that any unclean action done with them or to them, whether consensual or not, led to the same level of filth. A cupcake that gets dropped in filth, whether in purpose or by accident is still a ruined cupcake. Young women were taught about the power of the atonement, but they were also taught that filth remained no matter how many prayers for forgiveness happened. A ruined cupcake is simply never the same again. The goal would then become finding someone who was willing to settle for a disgustingly dirty and ruined cupcake.
Those lessons literally negate the atonement and negate the entire basis of Christianity.
The Gottman ratio of 5:1 is the tipping point. ( I frankly would have taken a 1:5 relationship with the church, after years of totalitarian local leadership and a Nazi mission President.). It took me years to realize how many major institutional shortcoming I accepted, until I could finally accept no more.
When there is conflict in a relationship (and a healthy relationship will always have at least minor conflict), maintenance of a healthy relationship it requires the parties to display interest in the others concerns and to ask open ended questions. Next to express true affection and demonstrate that the other one matters. Following, to accept others perspectives and finally to have empathy and apologize.
Sorry, but the LDS institution fails on every one of these levels! The answers of: follow the prophet, align yourself with the brethren, stay in the boat, etc. just avoids the true concerns.
In 1974, an important book was published by Harold Raush. It was the first observational longitudinal study to use sequential analysis of interaction in relationship conflict styles. Raush divided his couples into three groups: Harmonious, Conflict Avoiding, and Bickering. He suggested that the two extreme styles of conflict (avoiding and bickering) were dysfunctional. The key to accepting your partner’s influence in conflict discussions – a crucial part of reducing their negativity – is the willingness to compromise.
The LDS institution does not compromise and it is only a one way relationship (unless you are playing the leadership game or using church for your MLM) . Until some one is reborn and has an awakening they continue on the same path. For many the initial journey in the LDS community is excellent and it can create more spirituality and the desired goals.. However, when questions arise for some individuals (and they should if some one is studying and learning and seeking) there needs to be a true outlet and source for relationship mending. In the LDS institution, the spiritual journey is designed to end in the early 20’s after a temple marriage. There is nothing else do be on the LDS journey for except be in leadership positions to get other youth to that same stage and point. If you have a 5:1 + experience then you are good with the LDS church. If your ratios are less than 5:1 then is is an unhealthy relationship. So if you are seeking and asking questions, you will eventually find “poop” in the mix. Does that change your ratio? You can take the journey onto Fowler stage IV and hopefully V->VI. Or place those items on the shelf for a future day, until life or circumstances changes the ratio. Many people who have questioned did not ask for these experiences, it is just where life’s journey took them.
We each need to each be creating positive experiences with all of our relationships, We need to do our part in church/life, but the LDS church thinks it also is creating positive experiences. The church is trying to change, but it is too late for many. No matter what the LDS church does at this point, they will create more causalities because they put themselves in their own corner of predicament . However, when it is not a health relationship then people can question their faith and start down the rabbit hole of more questions and finding more “poop”. Hopefully each one of us eventually leaves the rabbit hole and seeks healthy food from a multitude of other sources and “good books” that leads us toward God and happiness. On our own terms to which we have personally been inspired and not the institutions’ terms.
Which of us wants to be judged or remembered by our worst points. My salvation depends on my actions and repentance not Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or anyone else. ” with what measure yet judge shall yet be judged by.
I think the “just a little poop” is geared more toward those who are struggling to know whether poop in brownies is actually good for them (there are a few out there). If that quote was taken to extreme, however, I don’t think we’d ever hear Shakespeare quoted in conference. I boil it down more to “watch yourself.” I usually ask myself if I will become a better or more enlightened person overall after consuming material I’ve done my homework on ahead of time. If the answer is yes, I then proceed.
Personally, I’ve felt the twinkie and cupcake analogies came more from misguided seminary teachers than they did Church leaders of more recent decades. I don’t think the emphasis on avoiding sin has died away, but the emphasis on utilizing the Atonement has grown.
Is it fair to compare to things in the Church? I’m not so sure. Sin seems more black and white. Things in the Church seem slightly more nuanced to me, so I try reserve some judgement until all things are revealed.
The problem with Prez Oaks’ obsession with the LGBTQ+ community is that it is toxic (poop in the brownies). It is having a fatal affect on young members of the Church. For example, too many gay et al. members are committing suicide. I ask myself frequently if I’m abetting this disaster by staying on the Church records as a member?
But if you leave Roger you will have no influence, nothing will change except I’ll have one less brother alongside me as we fight the good fight together. It’s getting lonely in here…
Mormon response: One bad apple don’t spoil the whole bunch (girl).
I stayed for a long time, thinking that I had more influence working from the inside. But I finally concluded that when people stay, even if they speak up, the work gets done and the tithing gets paid, so what impetus do leaders have to change anything? Meanwhile, the cost to me in time, money, and aggravation was huge.(And I also should have realized much, much earlier that this is especially true for women—they are only there to do the work the men don’t want to do, and no one cares about their input at all), I’m convinced that change only happens when enough people walk away. Not to ruin your day, Roger and HandleWithCare. I assume you’re both men, which automatically gives you more influence, and if you have the energy to keep going, then I wish you the best. I couldn’t do it anymore.
Just to comment on some of the comments:
Wondering – I think I was raised in the church when this “all-or-nothing mentality and the church is growing like a teenager”. I don’t think the church leaders realized that church growth could ever decline (OK, maybe just 2-3 years before Christ comes, but until then we are kicking butt) or that some of the problematic history of the church would surface.
Damascene – I very much agree that these object lessons don’t fill me with a love of Christ. I hope they have completely stopped and are in the past.
Faith – I would agree with much of what you commented, but I do disagree a bit on the LDS institution not compromising. I think they do, but they don’t want it to appear that it is outside influence that caused the change. Gregory Prince has said that every doctrine in the church has changed over time. I think change can even be delayed if it APPEARS that outside influence was the cause. I have loved reading some books from Armand Mauss (I think it was “The Angel and the Beehive”) where he talks about the church being in constant tension and balancing being adjusting to change and being able to say “we are different”.
Rogerdhansen – I just read a message from someone feeling they had not helped someone as it was more the church stance not to be associating with “people like that” and they really regret it. You are not alone.
Handlewithcare – Your point is valid, but not everyone can fight that battle. For some, the emotional cost is too high. I would argue that leaving altogether may not be as effective on a 1×1 basis (staying in you might be able to significantly help individuals), but I would think that the collective of people leaving does put pressure for change from above.
Dot – I wrote my reply to Handlewithcare before I read yours. Ouch. I hope you feel much bigger and important than a dot.
Dave B – I bet if you run the lyrics of that Donnie Osmond tune, some of the youth today might wonder if this is a guy trying to convince a bisexual girl not to give up on guys just because one was a jerk. He certainly is writing checks that might not be able to be cashed, “Won’t you just give me one chance?
I’ll give you my guarantee that you won’t be hurt again.” I guess you can see why my career as a music critic didn’t pan out well.
I was raised with these “Mormon Ads” and I very much remember the roach on the ice cream Ad. Some of them were good, but many have not aged well.
“The corollary was that if we went to a movie that had “just a little bit nudity”, it still ruined the whole movie. Or read a book with just a little bit of profanity, it was all bad.”
Movies, books, and brownies are things that are external to us but what happens when people internalize that teaching? What happens when we see ourselves as the brownie? In that all or nothing mindset a little bit of poop (some innocent mistake resulting from the human condition) can lead us to believe that we are all bad, worthless, unworthy.
As an orthodox, believing member I developed crippling scrupulosity. The way we teach the gospel at church erodes self esteem. It’s a real danger.
Gottman’s 5 to 1 and even more Fredrickson’s 3 to 1 (or 2.9013 to 1) ratios have been discredited. Both the math and the intuition behind them (because experiences are difficult-to-impossible to compare). I take that to mean “how much is too much” is the wrong question. I think the question comes out of binary thinking—trying to bucket everything into good and bad, right and wrong, true and false. Among other things, This is a great flaw and danger in “purity gospel” teachings.
Life will always bring us a mix, in people and experiences. I prefer to think in gradations—more or less useful, more or less coherent, more or less relevant to my stage in life, more or less risky. I’m not sure I have any right or wrong, pure or adulterated, left. Everything’s a mix..
Happy hubby
Thank you for your perspective. My issues with church are more in my life experience and how I have been treated vs the history or doctrine.
My final straw was asking the stakes president to allow my kids to have early morning seminary at 630 am in place of their 530 am classes. I was told no. Then I requested.that my kids participate in home study seminary on the lds website…to which the church spent resources. I was told no
I was not asking for much….only some flexibility of the crazy early early seminary hour. From there it has been all eye opening for me the past 8 years.
So in my experience the church is NOT flexible or compromising. People are more important than programs, but the institution loves their programs. And when the programs run the church along with zealots…why even be 0art of this group. I am a white male..upper class economic….BYU grad….prior ward/atake leader……..and even with that percieved privelage I had no voice or better said some one to listen that there is ‘poop in your browenies.” I have that much more empathy for people who do not fit in the mormon “mold”.
My issues are more now than just an early morning seminary program but that is one of thousands of issues and stories that members deal with. The intuition shows a history of 190 years of ignoring the toxins.
Thanks, Happy Hubby. 🙂 And I think your reply to Handlewithcare is right on. Everyone has to do what works for them, but my only regret about leaving is that I didn’t do it sooner.
“Yet couldn’t you argue that the mental image of Joseph marrying a 14 year old girl (almost 15) has planted a memory in your mind that can’t be undone?”
Teenage girls marrying during the 19th century was not uncommon, even up to the early 20th century. Young brides marrying older men was also fairly common. I have found many examples of both in my own family tree so, no, this does not and has never bothered me.
One problem with the Joseph Smith defense is that we hold our men to a very very high standard on one hand, but we dismiss the JS historical record on another. We tell the men of the Church that if they have an inappropriate thought, they are comfiting a sin in their heart. And we tell them that if they even look at a pornographic image they have sinned. And of course, sexual sin is right next to murder in terms of seriousness. Meanwhile, we read about the life and times of Joseph Smith and his polygamy. Not to mention Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball’s good times.
So when we are told to give JS a break, as did Neil A Anderson, I would ask that the Church give us a break as well.
The institution that manages the Church emphasizes obedience to a point where purity becomes sterility.
I like to think of purity in terms of a garden—which can be muddy and messy at times, instead of purity as a hospital or laboratory environment (institutional purity).
Atonement can make poop into manure, and manure into compost. Same with us.
DB: It was FAR less common than you think. From an article about average ages of first marriage for women: “the average age of first marriage for all of the colonies studied was 19.8 before 1700, 21.2 during the early 18th century, and 22.7 during the late 18th century… by the end of the 19th century, the median age when women were first getting married was between 22 and 24 years old, and this tendency continued into the 1940s. In fact, the lowest median age of first marriage since the early 1700s was had by the baby boom generation, where the age dropped to 20.5 years in 1950.” Any way you slice it, 14 going on 15 was an outlier.
Your point about age differences being common is definitely valid, mostly because so many women died in childbirth, and female fertility (which ends around 40-50) was prized so highly.
What’s really uncommon? Getting “married” at age 14 because a prophet told your parents your family would be saved if they permitted it, and of course it was all a secret because Emma, his actual legal wife, did not agree to it. Also, it wasn’t a “marriage” in any real sense in that they did not set up house together or intend to raise a family together (even though sex was involved). That’s decidedly less common. Glad you’re not bothered by such behavior. As a mother and as a woman, I certainly am, and I’m also bothered that so many men are not bothered. Until we quit commodifying women in this way, we will never repent of the misogyny of polygamy.
For Angela and DB:
Even in this day and age, why do we raise our eyebrows when a 22-year old man marries a 30-year old woman? It stands out, and I confess that I myself do a double-take when I become aware of such a marriage.
My own father was 40 when he married my 29 year-old mother. Both my grandfathers married women 4 years older than they were. But three sets of great-grandparents had men around 30 marry women around 17-18, in 1871, 1856, and 1893. One set of 3G-grandparents married at 32 and 17. All non-Mormon. One of these couples “had” to get married, but the other marriages seem to have been equal parts love and economic transaction, in which the man was already well-to-do.
But no quarrels about the creepy nature of marrying a 14 year-old. That crosses the “ick” line in a very strong way, and I think that applies to how it was viewed in the 1800s, too.
Maybe we just have to accept that our ancestors viewed life a lot differently than we did. Beating children (and wives….) was standard discipline back then. And I have learned over 40 years of home teaching that dark secrets exist in many “good” families, today.
Knowing that the Church regards the D & C as a living document, that has had things added and deleted over the years, I personally hope that the Church can find its way to de-canonizing parts of the 132nd section. The Church is already emphasizing the Book of Jacob in the B of M to emphasize that monogamy is the norm. I am afraid that Angela is right about commodification of women in the Church; I have had bitter personal experience with my daughters, in this regard.
A few years ago we invited some friends to movie night. One friend had been home from a mission for about a year. We watched Love Actually (edited). In the beginning, the RM oohed and aahed as each British actor played their part. The secretary flirting with the married man, then him buying jewelry for her, and his wife painfully becoming aware of his infidelity is painful. At the end, the RM asked why we like the movie. It was apparent that a very non graphic portrayal of cheating ruined the whole movie for RM.
To me, that outlook infantalizes adults. I don’t picture Ms Innocence becoming an effective social worker or marriage counselor. (But hey, MLM is lucrative, safe and innocent. /s)
Further, such things are real life for many people. Me seeing implied adulatory for fictional characters may help me develop empathy in a very safe space for what others actually experience. Most people don’t want to share harrowing details of such an experience.
I felt similarly after watching Beasts of the Southern Wild. Participating by proxy in a life that is grittier than mine, but not less meaningful, is insightful.
Angela, you say it was far less common than I think, so tell me, how common do I think it was? Somehow you seem to know how common I think it was even though I didn’t give any statistics, or percentages, or numbers of any kind. It’s rather odd that you would make a statement like that when you have no idea how common I think it was. Also, average and median ages of first marriage are completely irrelevant since those numbers tell us nothing about how common it was for teenage girls to marry. If you actually have some numbers that tell how common teenage marriage was during the 19th century, especially in the more western states, please share those as that would be insightful information.
On another point, I respectfully ask that you not put words into my mouth that I did not say. I commented solely on the age of marriage and that I was not bothered by the age of marriage. I said nothing about the issues of polygamy, adultery, secret marriage, or prophetic influences, so when you said that I was not bothered by such behavior, you were claiming that I had said or implied as much when clearly I did not. Stop that. False accusations is one of the lowest tricks that so many commentators like to use on sites like this to denigrate those they disagree with. It’s a cheap and dirty trick and I ask for and expect more respect than that from one of the moderators of this site.
DB, why don’t YOU do the work of finding and showing the numbers on teenage marriage in the 19th century? What do you mean by “not uncommon” and “fairly common”? I always find it amusing when people make authoritative statements backed up by vague assumptions and then, when faced with actual statistics, insist that someone else find some other statistics instead.
On another point, you were responding to a comment about Joseph Smith marrying a 14-year-old, an occurrence whose circumstances cannot be separated from the other elements you mention.
Dot, your response is no better than Angela’s. Either you didn’t read my comments thoroughly or you’re just responding to how you want to read my comments. I suspect the latter. My statements about the commonality of teenage marriage and age differences in marriage come from anecdotal evidence from my own family history as I stated in my first comment and not from vague assumptions as you stated. You seem to have missed that, either accidentally or intentionally.
Secondly, I was not faced with any actual statistics because Angela didn’t provide any statistics about teenage marriage. You also seem to have missed that.
Thirdly, I did not insist that anyone provide any statistics. Either you misread my comment or that was just a false accusation meant to make me look petulant.
Lastly, the age of a bride can certainly be discussed separately from any other elements involved in the marriage. I suspect you just don’t want to.
DB,
“I have found many examples of both in my own family tree so, no, this does not and has never bothered me.” Divorce was common in my family tree. At what point does being common become acceptable?
Do child brides in certain cultures today bother you? They’re not uncommon.
Slavery was common in the US in the 1800s. Just because it was common doesn’t make it ok.
DB: 1) Anecdotal evidence = assumptions (often vague and often influenced by confirmation bias); 2) If the average age of marriage for the past 300 years is in the 20s, it can be inferred that teenage marriages are not the norm. 3) You stated: “If you actually have some numbers that tell how common teenage marriage was during the 19th century, especially in the more western states, please share those as that would be insightful information.” 4) When the bride is marrying *Joseph Smith* the other issues are absolutely relevant. 5) Like Angela, I’m very bothered.
DB – If I understand you, you were saying that you have found evidence in your family history of young brides with not-so-young grooms. Fine. That can be true that you have this in your family history AND that it wasn’t common. I just did a search on “average age of marriage in early 1800s in america” and I skimmed a few articles and it seems to me that the evidence leans towards it being uncommon. For those that tend to defend Joseph’s marrying of young brides by saying it was common back then (invoking presentism), this doesn’t seem to me to be a great defense. For just as others have said, it bothers me. Even if others were marrying young brides, it bothers me. If I tell a lie, it isn’t much of a defense for me to say that the president lies much more.
To everyone who feels the need to attack my comments – what’s the deal? I mean seriously, what’s the deal? I have an opinion, a position, a perspective you don’t agree with and you feel the need to attack me? Seriously? Why don’t you ask yourselves why and then think really hard about that. I haven’t once tried to prove myself right with relevant or irrelevant statistics or facts and that was never my intent. I was sharing my perspective and why I had that perspective. That’s it. I was also not trying to prove anyone else wrong or try to convince anyone else that their opinion or perspective was wrong, unlike all of you. So I ask you again, why are you trying to prove me wrong when I’m not trying to prove anything? Is your own opinion so fragile that you can’t handle the existence of differing opinions? That is one of the biggest problems on the internet and all the sites on the bloggernacle are not immune. Instead of sharing and discussing differing opinions (which is what rational, intelligent people do) in order to better understand others and understand the world, almost everyone will go out of their way to disprove anyone and any idea that differs from their own. You know what, opinions, perspectives, and beliefs don’t have to supported by evidence or statistics. Yours don’t and neither do mine. You know what else, you can’t change anyone’s opinion, perspective, or belief by throwing evidence or statistics at them, even if it was good evidence or statistics. If you haven’t realized that yet, you really need to open your eyes. So let me make a very serious suggestion for all of you, the next time someone posts or comments with an opinion or perspective that you disagree with, first try to understand why they have that different opinion or perspective and then just share your own and why you have your own.
Now, if you must, just must attempt to prove yourself right or someone else wrong, please try to do it intelligently, and not the way you all have been doing it. Because, seriously, all you’ve done is use the same stupid, illogical arguments that I see thrown out all the time. All you’ve done is twist my words, falsely accuse me of saying things I’ve never said, ignore what I actually said, apply false intent to my words, use irrelevant statistics, and use irrelevant comparisons. Seriously, please try a little harder.
If it bothers you that a teenage girl married Joseph Smith, and it bothers you because of her age (without going into other issues), I really don’t care that it bothers you. Unlike a lot of you, I’m happy that we don’t all have the same opinions and perspectives. Why do you care so much that it doesn’t bother me? Why do you try to force your own opinions and perspectives on others by trying to prove them wrong?
I have always wanted to respond by going down the USDA list of acceptable levels of contaminants for wheat and for bread flour and ask if each would disqualify a Twinkie or something similar from consumption.
https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredients-additives-gras-packaging-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/food-defect-levels-handbook
Gives a completely different perspective to the lesson.
I have always wanted to respond by going down the USDA list of acceptable levels of contaminants for wheat and for bread flour and ask if each would disqualify a Twinkie or something similar from consumption.
https://www.fda.gov/food/ingredients-additives-gras-packaging-guidance-documents-regulatory-information/food-defect-levels-handbook
Gives a completely different perspective to the lesson.
DB, you ask the question in a number of words that I will reframe as, “why such pushback on my position?” I might be at risk to being called out as “twisting your words”, so correct me if I summarized it incorrectly. I might also point out that I was trying in my comments to give you space to have your opinion.
I think the answer to that question is that it is more than just your comment alone. It is pushback to many statements common in the church that often irritate people that have looked into these issues. Many such comments, such as “Polygamy was done because more men died and there were more women” and “Polygamy was mainly marrying of older women/widows”. From what I have read the first of those statements is statistically false and the second statement is not describing the norm even if some cases did fit this description. It can become irritating to be constantly told something that appears to be incorrect just so that people can feel better.
I actually appreciate some pushback like this – even when people pushback on me. I have learned a TON over the years from people commenting and usually I go do some research. Sometimes I learn something totally new, sometimes I disagree, and often I find that many things are just complicated and multi-faceted.
And Stephen’s comment about the USDA list made me think about one interesting thing. I looked at it and it does talk about insect parts. I had to laugh as one of the new fads is cricket flower and I have tried a cricket protein bar. I mentioned that to some people and they just said, “NEVER!!!” and were quite disgusted. I think this applies to this tangent. For some the age difference issue is a BIG deal, and for others it isn’t. Just because two of us fall on different places on a bell curve doesn’t make our opinions wrong if we can respect (tolerate) others positions and request the same in return.
But I did have a laugh this AM. I was listening to a book “Never Caught” about a slave of George Washington. George’s granddaughter (age 19) was marrying someone in their late 30’s and this issue was all over the equivalent of today’s enquirer magazine and the book indicated this was scandalous.
But I will point out that if this isn’t a big deal to you, why do you keep replying so much in protest? I have to say I feel your responses come off to me as a bit over-sensitive. You do have a point, but the response to me seems a bit over the top.
But thanks for being willing to converse on this.
I’ve appreciated HH’s and DB’s exchange.
I’m a bit less appreciative of the attempts to use averages to show that something different from an average is not “common.” Before coming to any such conclusion, one needs to know not only the average but also the range and the distribution of the data. One may also need a more precise definition of “common.” The average would seem to indicate something about commonness only if the distribution forms a symmetrical bell curve. But if that bell curve were rather flat because of a wide range, then it still does not mean that something between and far from both the peak of the bell and one end of the range is not also “common.”
Statistics can be used, whether intentional or not, to mislead. Even if accurate, they are potentially misleading without much more information than an average. As has been said, numbers will testify to anything if you torture them long enough.
That said, I doubt (without serious statistical analysis) that 19th century marriages of young teenage American girls were as common as some would like to think or as uncommon as some others would like to think. If looking for relevant statistics, I might also want to limit the search to “frontier” America at the time. There could be a difference between frontier practices and at least the economically better off parts of larger New England cities. I might also want to limit it carefully to first marriages, or at least separate the data by first, second, and third marriages, etc., to see if it makes any difference.
But I won’t be looking. I have better things to do and it is likely that no statistics could make me less disgusted with what I’ve read of JS’ behavior in that regard or with some Mormon polygamy practices from their inception through the first part of the 20th century, even if they could help me be more sympathetic to the people engaged in such practices, as I am to my few acquaintances (men and women) who have freely chosen to engage in polygamy in the late 20th and 21st centuries.
Happy Hubby, why do I keep replying if the issue isn’t a big deal to me? Because when my words are twisted, when I am accused of saying things I didn’t say, when I’m accused of intent that I never implied or had, when people claim things about me that they have no possible way of knowing, that feels like a very intentional attack on me. Why else would someone do those things unless it is a personal attack? I think people do that because if they don’t like my perspective, it’s much easier to attack me than it is to directly confront my perspective. I enjoy discussing differing opinions and perspectives with those who will actually discuss and who are more interested in understanding than in trying to prove everyone else wrong and themselves right. It may come off as over the top to you but thank you for at least trying to understand.
Your second paragraph may answer part of your question as well. If you believe that people are responding to me not just as a response to my comment but as a response to other sources of irritation as well, then perhaps you can understand why I feel like I’m being personally attacked. If what you say is true, then perhaps those responses to my simple comment are a bit over sensitive and over the top as well.
Wondering, I wish more people had your understanding of statistics.
Someone actually has run a statistical analysis. Dave Keller records 1 – 3.2% (depending on regions) of 1850 marriages involved a 14-year-old. For Illinois and Missouri, the rates were 1.3% and 1.9%.
Click to access Timely-Statistics-Vindicate.pdf
Whether or not this “vindicates” Joseph Smith is another question. But to put that in context, you were about four times more likely to know a 14-year-old bride back then in Illinois or Missouri, than a same-sex married couple in the US in 2014. And an estimate of 1840’s marriages involving a 16YO is comparable to today’s percentage of interracial marriages.
Oops, I thought that would just post the link, not the entire paper.
One more thought on the ages of the young “brides.” They weren’t actually brides. They weren’t actually wives. Plural marriage wasn’t legal in Illinois at the time. That has to be part of the discussion.
While there may have been rare cases of teenage girls marrying older men at the time, it was practically unheard of for them to “marry” older already-married men (sometimes over twice their age).
A plural wife didn’t live openly with her “husband” and if she became pregnant there was pressure to hide the pregnancy. The younger “wives” were still financially supported by their parents. These “marriages” didn’t resemble marriage as we know it.
I grew up in the church in a multigenerational family. I never knew, until well into adulthood, that polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo. As I become more aquatinted with the way the practice was carried out it is impossible for me to be comfortable with it.
Thanks Laruel. This did seem to be pushing the issue that teen brides was common. That can be different than “much older men marrying a teen”. Heck – I have 2 sets of friends that were a 16 year old brides – and they are still married after decades!
But it does address some categories of older men (age 34-38) marrying “teens” (which of course can go up to age 19). I don’t know that this exactly answers just how common it was in 1843 for a 37 year old to marry a 14 year old. I think it is safe to assume much less than the one table I am referring to puts forward.
Learning: Yes, exactly.