Mormon Bombshell! Church Admits Founder Had 14 Year Old Bride!!!

What's happening is, they are making an official acknowledgement.

It's not new info. Or even a surprising reveal, as it was never officially denied.

Why they're doing it would be interesting to know.

a reply to: Hefficide

Right, and you're a prime example of a parent who has driven a legal construct in which parents of girls who choose something their parents didn't want are handled by the parent filing charges against a possibly totally equal partner in a consensual act. Got it. I understand where you're coming from.

BUT, age is not the determining factor of the PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER pedophilia. And you have to HAVE pedophilia to BE a pedophile.

This is sheer, unadulterated ignorance. This is bigotry in its most blatant form. The misuse of labels in order to denigrate another person because of a difference they have compared to you that you simply are NOT going to humanitarianly tolerate. And again, I assert that where you're coming from originally is not that of the father of a 16 year old girl, but some one who got his nuts off when you thought you'd be able to make a disgusting claim against the founder of a RELIGION. That's a bet I'm standing on.

[snipped]

Never mind.

a reply to: Valhall

Honestly sir, you sound like a NAMBLA guy. Legal age of consent isnt some arbitrary number attached to law. Its a scientific determination reflected in organic law that takes into account brain development, psychological development and other factors.

You can say that legal age to consent is not really important, but it is. A child will always want candy. Even if it will make him /her sick. They cant decide their diet for the same reason they cant decide when they want to engage in sexual activity. Its not even real to them in any meaningful way needed to make a real decision.

I am sorry sir. Its not bigotry against young love with an older person. Its common sense.

Also, even if it was bigotry, I dont think you will find many people willing to go against their own moral code to defend the rights of people who defy organic law with an argument of natural law based in true love beyond age.

Pedophilia falls into many categories. The main factor is age. Sorry. You wouldnt say that a grown man with his grown wife that are role playing with school girl costumes and teacher get ups would be pedophiles. The attraction in pedophiles is about maladjusted grown people who look for their sexual equals in inexperienced young people. Their sexual experience is usually filled with sexual abuse that stunted their sexual development. They then look to find partners who are sexually inexperienced because they are their equals sexually. But its more than that, pedophiles wish to be more experienced than their partners once an equal is found in a child.

Its a predatory relationship and entirely based in the child not knowing what is being done to him /her. Its also based on them not knowing how to defend themselves against an older attacker. That is what drives a pedophile.

Age is also a factor then since an adult person would be able to stop or report the abuse. A child is more of a target since the adult can manipulate their response by drawing on his greater life experience. Like a wolf hunting the young-ling or defenseless of another species. Easy prey.

Age is the determining factor for a predator in choosing its prey like it is in the predatory nature of pedophiles.

If they found their sexual equals in adults with no sexual experience or people with social deficiencies that make them easy to manipulate they would go after them. They go after children because they look for absolute dominance and power. Its not a sickness, but a preference in prey. Like a wolf going after a young-ling of a species over the sick of the herd.

There are plenty of maladjusted adults that a person with predatory tendencies could partner with. There are many who have predatory mind sets and people with victim mindsets that do find each other and develop unhealthy relationships. A pedophile goes one step further to have complete dominance and CHOOSES a child who is completely helpless.

That is why society makes a distinction for them and reserves a special place in hell for them.

Honestly, No one cares about their "rights" to be predators with no interference. Legal age of consent is accepted by all. If you dont like it you can join another society that fits your beliefs.

originally posted by: Hefficide

originally posted by: Valhall
a reply to: Hefficide

Right, and you're a prime example of a parent who has driven a legal construct in which parents of girls who choose something their parents didn't want are handled by the parent filing charges against a possibly totally equal partner in a consensual act. Got it. I understand where you're coming from.

So you are implying that as long as the child wants sex, the adult predator is somehow innocent? Brilliant.

Nope...didn't say that anywhere. We're not talking about the ill-written modern law. We're talking about the definition of a pedophile. We're also not talking about the ill-written modern law versus who has an abnormal hankering for young meat versus someone who falls in love with someone who is under a certain age as defined by CURRENT law, not the law in effect when they were alive. And, yes, I'm saying there are MANY MANY MANY men who at the age of 18,19,20,21 messed around with 15,16,17 year old girls who wanted to have sex or do whatever level of activity took place and the slightly older male got the legal label when the slightly younger female got in a sticky wicket with her parents, and didn't want to answer to a father like you. Yes, that's what I'm saying. 20 year old male versus 16 year old female...not a p***-load of difference between those two mentalities about 3/4's of the time. Now, does that mean the older male is not breaking the law? Nope, he's not innocent. The law was written as it is written and the minor can't be blamed for the adult's decision. So the male lives the rest of his life registering his address and not being able to get certain jobs, live in certain areas, etc. because he made an ill-though decision early in his life. Yes, I'm saying that's happening some where, right now.

If you dare to argue that the application of said law results in justice each and every time, I'll just make another notch on the stupid-stick of evidence that suggests you're uneducated in this area.

BUT, age is not the determining factor of the PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER pedophilia. And you have to HAVE pedophilia to BE a pedophile.

This doesn't even make sense. If an adult engages in sex with a child they are, by definition a pedophile.

An uneducated, almost moronic statement for you to make. Seriously...by definition they have quite a few more boxes to be checked. Once again, AGE is NOT the determining factor for a diagnosis of pedophilia. You are showing your ignorance on this subject.

And again, I assert that where you're coming from originally is not that of the father of a 16 year old girl, but some one who got his nuts off when you thought you'd be able to make a disgusting claim against the founder of a RELIGION. That's a bet I'm standing on.

Again, my posting history shows nothing but tolerance. Me thinks she doth protesteth too much. Also, I did not make the "disgusting claim" The freaking Mormon Church did. I simply brought the discussion onto ATS. If you've got a deep itch to scratch about Joseph Smith having married a 14 year old - call Utah and take it up with them.

First of all, don't try to obfuscate. I'm incensed by your liberal use of a word you have repeatedly proven to not even understand the meaning of. You made a very disgusting claim about someone. Second, the Mormons did not make a claim of pedophilia. They disclosed that one of his wives may have been 14 when he married her. Again, a knowledgeable person will understand that is NO WHERE close to a claim that he was a pedophile. Here is what we can state as pretty possible. Joseph Smith WAS a polygamist...self-professed!

You have decided to label Joseph Smith a possible pedophile, despite your total lack of understanding of what that label means and your inability to understand that an "underage bride" (that label being applied by the modern day measuring sticks) does not a pedophile make.

And you think your position is defensible.

originally posted by: Valhall
a reply to: Hefficide

Right, and you're a prime example of a parent who has driven a legal construct in which parents of girls who choose something their parents didn't want are handled by the parent filing charges against a possibly totally equal partner in a consensual act. Got it. I understand where you're coming from.

No. I am a loving father who understands that my sixteen year old daughter is not prepared to handle marriage and has more than enough time in life to make those choices once she has mentally and physically matured into adulthood.

And, yes, I would file a charge against anyone over the age of 18 who had sex with her, even consentually because she is NOT yet at the age of legal consent in the state she lives in.

it bears mentioning that I also have a 24 year old son who is yet to marry or become a parent and who understands that there is no rush on these things and is taking time to establish himself before he enters into any such covenant.

BUT, age is not the determining factor of the PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER pedophilia. And you have to HAVE pedophilia to BE a pedophile.

This post makes absolutely no sense to me at all. Are you suggesting that there are cases where adults having sex with fourteen year olds is acceptable as long as they are not clinically diagnosed as pedophiles?

This is sheer, unadulterated ignorance. This is bigotry in its most blatant form. The misuse of labels in order to denigrate another person because of a difference they have compared to you that you simply are NOT going to humanitarianly tolerate. And again, I assert that where you're coming from originally is not that of the father of a 16 year old girl, but some one who got his nuts off when you thought you'd be able to make a disgusting claim against the founder of a RELIGION. That's a bet I'm standing on.

One cannot be bigoted against a behavior. One can be averse to it. But we're not discussing anything along the lines of "Which flavor is better, chocolate or vanilla". We are discussing a middle aged man taking a child bride. This man happens to be the founder of a religion. That, in and of itself, opens him up to more scrutiny than the average person would be held against.

As far as the bet you are standing on? You are dead wrong. Again, my posting history shows tolerance towards every religion, culture, race, and orientation one can imagine. I am "anti" no one. As for the "disgusting claim", as you so eloquently squeezed in between insults - the claim is being made by the Mormon Church - not be me. I merely tabled the conversation on ATS.

Hate the source, not the messenger.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That is every religion, All religiosity. I was so hurt by the Christian Icon of Jesus nailed to the cross I used to do all I could to pry him off every one I could find.

Every Religion.

So uh, hey.. Joseph Smith..

I do understand in some way what Valhall is saying. I disagree that age is the primary factor in determining whether or not a person is a pedophile..

For example, why is it ok for a 65 year old man to sleep with an 18 year old girl, but not ok for a 17 year old girl and a 64 yera old man? The age difference is the same..

In my state (UTAH!) the consent laws area really odd.. I knew they were odd but didn't know all of the details until this thread forced me to look it up..

Here a female can consent at 16 and a male at 18. The law here says that at 16 and 17 it's consensual so long as the partner is no more than 7 years older, or 10 years older if they reasonable suspected the minor to be of consensual age.

Someone earlier said that these laws were based on science, but I don't think that's the case. If it were, we wouldn't have such a variance from state to state.

I may be mistaken, but reading the law in my state makes it sound to me that a 21 year old male could have relations with a 16 year old girl and no crime has been committed..

The age of consent in Utah is 18. However, it is legal for minors aged 16 and 17 to engage in sexual activity with partners less than 7 years older, and between 7 and 10 years older if the partner reasonably didn't know the minor's age.[98]

76-5-401.2. Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old.

(1) As used in this section, "minor" means a person who is 16 years of age or older, but younger than 18 years of age, at the time the sexual conduct described in Subsection (2) occurred.

(2)

(a) A person commits unlawful sexual conduct with a minor if, under circumstances not amounting to an offense listed under Subsection (3), a person who is:
(i) seven or more years older but less than 10 years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b), and the person knew or reasonably should have known the age of the minor; or
(ii) 10 or more years older than the minor at the time of the sexual conduct and engages in any conduct listed in Subsection (2)(b).
(b) As used in Subsection (2)(a), "sexual conduct" refers to when the person:
(i) has sexual intercourse with the minor;
(ii) engages in any sexual act with the minor involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person, regardless of the sex of either participant;
(iii) causes the penetration, however slight, of the genital or anal opening of the minor by any foreign object, substance, instrument, or device, including a part of the human body, with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, regardless of the sex of any participant; or
(iv) touches the anus, buttocks, or any part of the genitals of the minor, or touches the breast of a female minor, or otherwise takes indecent liberties with the minor, or causes a minor to take indecent liberties with the actor or another person, with the intent to cause substantial emotional or bodily pain to any person or with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person regardless of the sex of any participant.
76-5-401. Unlawful sexual activity with a minor—Elements—Penalties—Evidence of age raised by defendant.

I left some of the law out for language..

So what's worse? A 16 year old girl with a 21 year old man or a 65 year old man with an 18 year old girl? Who is really the pedophile in this scenario?

I don't know if Joseph Smith was a pedophile or not, but I do know he was one hell of a hustler.

ETA: Tadaman (awesome avatar), I don't think "organic law" has anything to do with it either. If we used "organic law" we would be living like animals, and sex would be allowed at the age of sexual maturity, or when the participants were physically mature enough to reproduce. If that were the case, we'd be allowing marriage/sex at ages around 12-14.

N/M

I'd live to regret it

I dislike Mormon religion, but it's not a big deal. Life expectancy is not what it is today.

Sometimes people have a hard time believing that things were once a certain way, because it's different and socially wrong at this time.

Things change. Now it's wrong, back then, it was not. Get over it.

a reply to: Hefficide

I believe many or most men are attracted most to facial features of 13 to 15 year-old teen girls. Unfortunately I don't remember the source of that information. The point being its natural for men to be attracted to 14-year-old girls. And of course men don't care nearly as much about mental maturity as women, so there you go. Nature at work... what is there to be upset about?

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

It was not so common as some might think. If we look at the history that basically happened in dynasties, but not among common folk. Marital ages during those times it was uncommon for under 20 years old to get married. There was nothing common about this.
LINK

If you want to see what a girl at age 14 looked like in that era you don´t have to search long, take a look what Warren Jeff´s youngest wife was alike Link
That is nothing more than a child !

a reply to: Hefficide

Religion: Justifying disturbing and disgusting behavior for over 10,000 years, and still going strong!

So ole jo comes to america financed by zion bank, aka rothschild, and not only is the local magical magician whom everyone pays to see his magical balls which supposedly steer you in the right direction of gold, but takes several of his friends wives to bed and marry, and then turns his attention up a notch and marries another little girl of 14 years of age. Wow just wow, guess business as usual then as it is now from the looks of some posters. Nothing further to say....

originally posted by: wayforward
a reply to: Hefficide

I believe many or most men are attracted most to facial features of 13 to 15 year-old teen girls. Unfortunately I don't remember the source of that information. The point being its natural for men to be attracted to 14-year-old girls. And of course men don't care nearly as much about mental maturity as women, so there you go. Nature at work... what is there to be upset about?

Speaking as a man, I wholeheartedly disagree. When I see a young girl, even a young woman - that is exactly what I see... young and there is no attraction whatsoever. That is not to say that younger women aren't attractive to me, but at my age ( 48 ) younger means more like 30-something.

a reply to: Hefficide

Back then marriage and religion were two excuses for pedophilia, but only when the groom was much older than the bride.

My grandmother had my mother at 14, her husband was only 17, it was that time when a lot of young got married during World war II, sadly he left his young bride pregnant and he never came back, he died in war.

Now, my mother elope with my father, she was only 15 and he was 25, today my father would have been charged with adduction, child molestation, would have been a sex offender and in jail.But they got married have 4 children and just celebrated their 55 wedding anniversary.

a reply to: marg6043

My parents had a large age discrepancy as well. My mother was 23 and my father was 35 when they married. My father had previously married a seventeen year old when he was seventeen.

Though it has become the inflammatory aspect of this thread, my original question remains... Why did the Church struggle to keep this secret until now? Why did they suddenly just pop-up with a random admission?

Is it an attempt at public relations? Is it preparation from some other story that is about to break - an attempt to distract? Is it a meaningful opening-up meant as an act of reformation and progress?

Much like other issues, such as slavery, for example - simply saying "That's how it was back in the day" doesn't simply erase the conversation from the table. It's part of the fabric of history that we need to understand in order to avoid repeating it once again. I personally do not care if Joseph Smith had a thousnd wives or had any other personal habits that I may or may not agree with. Though I will say that, given his historical portrayal, I doubt I would have been his friend if I lived during that period.

My quest is always to understand the "why" of things. Not to judge or feel superior - because God knows I am not. I just want to get it.

It's unfortunate that public pressure, primarily from the conservative Right, made the AMA backtrack and deny Pedophilia as an orientation.

I hate when the "moral police" interfere with science.

However, here is a really good article:

Many experts now view pedophilia as a sexual orientation
Pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life, but now, many experts view it as a deep-rooted predisposition that does not change.

latimesblogs.latimes.com...