LDS transparency: J Smith marriage to 14 yr old

[RebeccaJ]

We also have records of woman struggling with the decision to say “yes or no,” and some choosing “no” so there was nothing the precluded a negative response.

Besides the threat made to Helen Mar Kimball of not having an assured eternal salvation and exaltation, Smith used coercion. Telling of his own life being threatened by an angel with a sword, putting girls and women in the position of, marry me or I’ll be killed by an angel. He also used flattery, telling more than one of his “wives”, that they were the first to be invited to be his second wife. Some didn’t need more flattery than Smith’s attentions. He would also use current wives to convince other girls and women to join the merry harem.

Of course his real wife, Emma, was not on board at all with her husband’s adultery, and threatened more than once to return to her family in New York. In one angry moment saying if he could be unfaithful to her, she could practice likewise. Thus the threat from her husband, of destruction, canonized in D&C 132.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Your comment does give us an insight into the “power motive.” Instituting polygamy could be a test to see how much power Joseph possessed already, but in and of itself, it did little to enhance his power. In fact, net-net, before he was killed, I think the best read of the experience of Joseph’s polygamy is that it detracted from his power. Since it was linked to his martyrdom in the minds of some, counting his death it was definitely a negative.
Beside this however, I have often found Joseph to be much different than power seeking men.
After the death of Christ there were twelve apostles. The historical record does not convincingly say Peter was in charge, BUT after the death of the apostles the historical record points to numerous leaders. The number of bishops/presbyters in the local churches was great. Father Francis Sullivan traces the elevation of bishops/presbyters to “monarchical bishops,” a single man at the head of a local church. Robert Eno (Catholic scholar) in The Rise of the Papacy traces the elevation of city bishops to sub-regional authorities (Metropolitans), regional authorities (Patriarchs), and ultimately world authorities (Popes / Bishop of Rome). This CAN be explained as humans seeking power as humans have over history.
The CoJCoLDS started with a single human person claiming to receive visits from God and angels. Many (most?) historical figures that make such claims continue to point followers to themselves as the “window to heaven.” Joseph celebrated a number of instances where he was able to move the singular power he possessed to others. He cheered the 3 and 8 witnesses as now sharing his burden. He selected a quorum of 12 apostles and declared they had this and that power. He had assistant church presidents and councilors. He had church patriarch who gave him blessings and …
In addition to the formal shifting of authority from himself to others, he taught that EVERYONE could receive revelation not just him (and even that they should seek confirming revelations concerning what he taught, the BOM even examples this in its first few chapters).
And if that was not enough, some of the revelations he delivered criticized him, and some of the revelations he delivered cautioned against the seeking of power and how HUMANS do this. This is worth quoting I think, D&C 121 39-46

So, my personal conclusion is that while power is frequently a motive for sexual conquest, I do not see this as compelling read of history either.

There is not a lot of evidence of abortion. The bulk of it comes from the doctor John C. Bennett. When the church excommunicated him for adultery his response was not, “I am innocent,” but was rather Joseph is worse.

It is not merely the lack of ANY biological children that I think evidences Joseph was not out having volumes of sex, but two other things.

First, the “dirty stinking affair” accusation was rare. I do not think regular sexual liaisons would have produced so little in this regard.
Second, those who followed Joseph Smith were not libertines. If your 21st century sensibilities are tempted to point to the polygamist as pursuing sex in a deviant manner, those of Joseph’s day would be much worse. The bulk of these conservative Christian followers of Joseph do not gawk at his indiscretions. I think this is unlikely if sex were frequent and more unlikely if sex and abortion were frequent.

Charity, TOm

I’m frankly, shocked that you would think power was not at the heart when Smith himself, writes that it is.

D&C 132:5 55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

Not to mention the times he names himself as the fulfillment of OT prophecies. That he was deluded by power, doesn’t mean he was not motivated by power.

 

[RebeccaJ]

History cannot tell us what happened in all the bedrooms where Joseph happened to be on any giving night. But history can provide us with examples were sealings didn’t involve sex, it can show us the reaction of Polygamy insiders to Joseph’s teachings, it can show us how Joseph’s sexual appetites did or did not affect those who knew him much better than we can. I understand why you bring your assumptions of sex and sexual appetite to Joseph’s polygamy, but I do not think that is a good read of the historical record we have.
Cont… (I hope).
Charity, TOm

History shows us that those close to him, reported of his affairs in a newspaper, which ultimately led to his imprisonment and murder. Emma, his wife, who he hid his affairs from in direct violation of his own “scripture”, would discover the affairs going on in her home, with boarders or servants, and they would soon be out, living with someone else. One of his “wives” wrote she feared being poisoned by Emma. All this sneaking around a wife doesn’t have to be done when the relationships are benign.

And again, let’s look to your D&C 132, which goes into length that the purpose of plural marriage is to produce children. Of course, twisting Biblical accounts in a most diabolical manner to suit Smith’s purpose. But none the less, let’s look at basic human biology to understand what it takes to produce children.

 

[glendab]

Hello Rebecca.

I’m frankly, shocked that you would think power was not at the heart when Smith himself, writes that it is.

D&C 132:5 55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundred-fold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.

Not to mention the times he names himself as the fulfillment of OT prophecies. That he was deluded by power, doesn’t mean he was not motivated by power.

Add this: ANY man or woman who thinks he or she is writing actual Scripture is all about power, the power of God to influence others. It is THAT obvious. Everyone knows the power that is in Scripture. It has lead and feed people for two thousand years and J. Smith was no blind to this power. If he could make folks believe that what he was writing WAS SCRIPTURE, then his power would only be as limited as those believer’s natural abilities. He’d have absolute power over them and that is EXACTLY what he got. It is ALL ABOUT POWER and CONTROL.

But denial is also a powerful tool and if a person doesn’t want to see the evil that is contained in all of this, then they will keep themselves blind to it. A person standing in a darkened room who suddenly sees the outside and the light pouring in to the darkened room they dwell in, is suddenly blinded by the light and blames the light for simply shinning and sees the loss of what little vision they have in a darkened room as a negative. That is the natural outcome of dwelling in darkness.

Glenda

 

[iepuras]

My point is that sexual appetite is the obvious reason offered by critics when pointing to the human instituted practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith.

The absence of “volumes” of sex brings this most obvious reason into question.

I did not offer sexual appetite as the only reason. Sex was obviously part of it, but I think polygamy was more about power. Sex is often used as a tool to wield power.

Can you please define “volumes” as a unit of measurement? Some men would consider sex once a week as “volumes”, but others would define “volumes” as once a day.

My point has always been that it is ridiculous to argue that LDS polygamy has nothing to do with sex when LDS scriptures expressly state in two places (BOM and D&C) that God commands polygamy for the purpose of having children. Both you and I know that children are the result of sex. “Volumes” of sex are not required.

The historical record cannot prove Joseph consummated even one polygamous union (there are friendly and hostile sources that say he did of course).

And the historical record cannot prove that he didn’t.

It took me about 30 sec to think of three.

I offered two reasons two examples previous where almost nobody believes Joseph consummated marriages.

The examples you provided are not examples where sex was never a part of the marriage. You are the one who has claimed that it is inappropriate to assume that Joseph Smith had any sex at all with his polygamous wives. How many marriages do you know of where the man and the woman enter into the marriage with the assumption of NO sex at any time in the marriage? When discussing this issue with my husband, I asked him if he would have married me if I told him that we were never going to have sex ever. He said ‘no’ so quickly, I got a good laugh out of it.

The theology that led to the above two types of sealings is the same as the theology that lead to the polygamous sealings you THINK involved Joseph’s sexual appetites. But these sealings didn’t. I would suggest this is another example of sealings (though it violates your added criteria “of child bearing age,” but this is a rather arbitrary addition on your part that does not align with the practice of polygamy in the CoJCoLDS) that didn’t involve sex and it is rather directly related to the sealings that you think are product of Joseph sexual appetites.

What theology are you referring to? Where is it stated in LDS scripture or some other “official” source that cannot be disavowed in the future when it becomes inconvenient? When is this theology taught in Sunday School or seminary classes? LDS scriptures clearly state that God commands polygamy to have children, and children come into being through sex.

My criteria of “child bearing age” is not arbitrary. It has to do with the reasons God commands polygamy, according to LDS scripture - to have children. Joseph was in his child bearing years, as well as the vast majority of his wives. Below is an age breakdown from information taken from www.wivesofjosephsmith.org. I classified Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester as “pre-menarche” since the average age of first menstruation at the time was age 16. They could have been menstruating when they married Smith, but they very well could have not been either.

Pre-menarche (>16): 2
Childbearing years (16-45): 27
Older (45+): 5

And I find it prohibitively unlikely that Joseph Smith had sex in ALL of his polygamous relationship.

And IMPOSSIBLE that Joseph had sex with all those to whom he was sealed.

Impossible? Really? Were you following him around with a video camera? Did he get sealed via telegraph and never met some of his wives in person?

I will say, I find it MUCH more likely Joseph and Mary had sex than that Joseph Smith had sex with ALL of his polygamous wives. And almost infinitively more likely that Joseph and Mary had sex than that Joseph Smith had sex with all those to which he was sealed.

And Mormons wonder why people accuse them of worshiping Joseph Smith and not Jesus.

It is good that you are not making wild accusations like Joseph Smith the homosexual or early Mormon necrophilia, but you are ignoring history.

By neglecting this bit of historical data you are creating a picture that does not align with history as well as mine does. This is biased history and it is why I think your picture is not well supported by the historical record.

And if I or someone else brought up these things, you or other Mormons would accuse us of spreading anti-Mormon lies. I guess LDS critics can simply never be right. When I told my Mormon mother that I learned that Joseph Smith married already-married women and lied about polygamy to Emma and the public, she accused me of spreading “anti-Mormon” lies.

Second, we have woman who claimed to have sex with Joseph to consummate the marriage. This claims align well with a wedding night consummation, but do not line up with regular liaisons. They also have nothing to say about birth control (this would have offended Christian sensibilities almost as bad as adultery until the mid to late 20th century), nothing about withdrawal (which would raised issues), nothing about the rhythm method or Joseph querying woman about time to get a feel for their menstruation cycles, and none of Joseph purported wives was likely to be pre-menarche. I believe I have read some from Bennett’s book on sex with pregnant woman, but this is a questionable source and would have also lead to much social problems we do not see anywhere except from Bennett.

But offending Christian sensibilities didn’t seem to stop Joseph Smith and his wives from committing adultery, so how would that stop them from engaging in artificial birth control or abortion?

 

[iepuras]

TOm,

I will also add that Joseph Smith had a vested interest in keeping his polygamy from becoming public knowledge. He went to great efforts to keep it secret. He even incited a mob to destroy a printing press that was publicizing his polygamous liaisons. Since he didn’t want his polygamy to become public, it is reasonable to expect that he would try to not have children with his wives, particularly the ones that were not already married to other men.

1. It was illegal.
2. It offended the Christian sensibilities of many of his followers.
3. It upset Emma. She threw fits over it and tossed some of his wives out of their home.

These are valid reasons to keep it hidden and to prevent the conception and birth of children that resulted from his polygamous unions.

If Smith’s unions were as sexless as you assume, why did he sneak around and lie to Emma and the public about it?

 

[TOmNossor]

Rebecca and Glenda,
When I ask myself what D&C 121 says, I do not begin with the assumption that Joseph Smith is the author of it. This is something I am seeking to determine as I weigh all these issues.
Here is a passage from Glenda:

Add this: ANY man or woman who thinks he or she is writing actual Scripture

is all about power, the power of God to influence others. It is THAT obvious. Everyone knows the power that is in Scripture. It has lead and feed people for two thousand years and J. Smith was no blind to this power. If he could make folks believe that what he was writing WAS SCRIPTURE, then his power would only be as limited as those believer’s natural abilities. He’d have absolute power over them and that is EXACTLY what he got. It is ALL ABOUT POWER and CONTROL.
To be consistent Glenda must believe that Peter, James, John, Paul, … who think they were "writing actual Scripture" are “all about power.”
There are not a great deal if any Catholic leaders who ever claimed to believe they could receive revelation/inspiration I agree if they claimed to receive it and didn’t that would be a problem, but history is clear they didn’t receive it.
To properly evaluate Joseph Smith, the POSSIBILITY that he received revelation/inspiration must be entertained. Glenda’s comment clearly evidences that she doesn’t hold that as a possibility. Any post Biblical author of scripture is “ALL ABOUT POWER” and is not receiving revelation/inspiration from God.
I cannot follow him in this preconception and I do not believe I should. I have long found it reasonable even more likely that the successor of Peter and the Apostles could, like the apostles could, receive inspiration/revelation. The Catholic “successors” never could (no writing of scripture, no supernatural public revelation from God, …). To their credit (I think by in large they were good men), they never lied and claimed they could; but something ended and the church was no longer lead by Apostles/Prophets (those who speak for God through inspiration/revelation).
Claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet was the hardest thing for me to do as I left the Catholic Church. In retrospect, I do not know why, but perhaps you have offered a window into my unchecked assumptions from long ago.

In any case, Glenda’s comment above evidences to me that she does not even recognize that her comment condemns Peter, James, John, Paul, … just as surely as it condemns Joseph Smith. This IMO is due deep-seated and likely unconscious assumptions. Assumptions that I had to leave behind if I was going to give the CoJCoLDS a fair reading.

glendab:
But denial is also a powerful tool and if a person doesn’t want to see the evil that is contained in all of this, then they will keep themselves blind to it. A person standing in a darkened room who suddenly sees the outside and the light pouring in to the darkened room they dwell in, is suddenly blinded by the light and blames the light for simply shinning and sees the loss of what little vision they have in a darkened room as a negative. That is the natural outcome of dwelling in darkness.
As you can accuse me of “denial,” I can accuse you of “deep-seated and unconscious assumptions.” Unlike your titling my position as “denial,” I have pointed to how your position underlines things you claim to believe. I think the evidence for your “deep-seated and likely unconscious assumptions” is stronger than the evidence for my “denial.”

I started outside the room that was the CoJCoLDS. My intellectual conclusion was and remains that Joseph Smith’s involvement in the institution of polygamy is poorly explained by appealing to power or sexual motives. Admittedly the “power” component here is IMO a poor explanation due largely to the distribution of power that Joseph Smith did and celebrated (as I mentioned before, he does not consolidate power in himself in contrast to other leaders including IMO the Pope). Beyond this, my intellectual conclusion was and remains that Joseph Smith as the naturalistic source of the BOM is essentially impossible. This firm conviction does not need to support the above info on the polygamy issue, but it is required to support another problematic issue discussed on this board, but not in this thread. And set beside the weighing of these issues intellectually, I also seek spiritual confirmation as I believe we all should.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I classified Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester as “pre-menarche” since the average age of first menstruation at the time was age 16. They could have been menstruating when they married Smith, but they very well could have not been either.

Pre-menarche (>16): 2
Childbearing years (16-45): 27
Older (45+): 5

You could be correct, but I did look into this briefly before I stated it.
Helen was older than 14.5.
Nancy was older than 15.5 probably if she should be included at all.

In 1901, the average age of menarche was 14.1 or so.

Excerpt from Medical News, June 22, 1901, about the proceedings of the 26th meeting of the American Gynecological Society, May 30 - June 1, 1901.
mum.org/menarage.htm

I know the average age is lowering, but I assumed that it was not older than 14.8 in the 1830’s.

What is your source?

Not that this is a huge linchpin of my thoughts on the matter, but I am interested to know.
Charity, TOm
47374]Ipuras;12447374]I highly ecord does tell us is that Joseph was having very little sex with anyone other than Emma. poly

 

[TOmNossor]

You could be correct, but I did look into this briefly before I stated it.
Helen was older than 14.5.
Nancy was older than 15.5 probably if she should be included at all.

In 1901, the average age of menarche was 14.1 or so.

Excerpt from Medical News, June 22, 1901, about the proceedings of the 26th meeting of the American Gynecological Society, May 30 - June 1, 1901.
mum.org/menarage.htm

I know the average age is lowering, but I assumed that it was not older than 14.8 in the 1830’s.

What is your source?

Not that this is a huge linchpin of my thoughts on the matter, but I am interested to know.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;12449331:

You could be correct, but I did look into this briefly before I stated it.

Helen was older than 14.5.
Nancy was older than 15.5 probably if she should be included at all.

In 1901, the average age of menarche was 14.1 or so.

Excerpt from Medical News, June 22, 1901, about the proceedings of the 26th meeting of the American Gynecological Society, May 30 - June 1, 1901.
mum.org/menarage.htm

I know the average age is lowering, but I assumed that it was not older than 14.8 in the 1830’s.

What is your source?

Not that this is a huge linchpin of my thoughts on the matter, but I am interested to know.
Charity, TOm
RebeccaJ,
I looked further into this and agree that in the 1830’s it was very likely later than 15yo for average.
If you do not have anything handy, don’t worry about it. I think I was wrong.
Charity, TOm

 

[RebeccaJ]

TOmNossor;12449434:

RebeccaJ,
I looked further into this and agree that in the 1830’s it was very likely later than 15yo for average.
If you do not have anything handy, don’t worry about it. I think I was wrong.
Charity, TOm

While yes, whether or not a young woman or girl was fertile is a measurement for marriageable age, the more influencing factor was that the man was able to care for a wife and children. People are more often attracted to people closer to their own age. A 14 or 15 year old is going to view a man in his thirties as OLD. My daughter at that age thought 25 was old.

Anyway, a man of that era required training in a vocation, which usually lasted years, until he could earn his own living as a skilled tradesman or craftsman. So the age of marriage would fall in the 20-22 year range, as young women were waiting for their suitors to reach a point where the young men could earn a living. The parents of the young woman would not give their blessing for a suitor who could not show he could care for their daughter and her children. I think Joseph Smith faced this problem himself, which is why he and Emma eloped. He had no trade or craft, and no land to farm.

It’s easy enough to find resources for marriage demographics. The book, “Female Adolescence in American Scientific Thought, 1830–1930”, By Crista DeLuzio sites men being married around age 25, women not before they were 20. The normal method for raising children, being that around 10-12 years of age boys would be apprenticed or enter into an indenture servant arrangement, while girls would begin to train with their mothers and female relatives for maintaining a household and raising children.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Polygamy, as practiced by the Utah Mormons, forced the marriage age of women to their teens. Modern polygamists face the same issue, of the natural balance of roughly 50/50 split in a community of men and women. So if you are collecting wives, the number of eligible women in their 20’s are married out of proportion to the number of men, and so the men start looking to marry the women younger, and younger. As we see with the modern communities of polygamists, they’ve reached the point of child brides. The same child bride scenario can be seen in polygamy as practiced in Islam. Girls and women become a limited commodity in patriarchal polygamist societies.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca and Glenda,
When I ask myself what D&C 121 says, I do not begin with the assumption that Joseph Smith is the author of it. This is something I am seeking to determine as I weigh all these issues.
Here is a passage from Glenda:

To be consistent Glenda must believe that Peter, James, John, Paul, … who think they were "writing actual Scripture" are “all about power.”
There are not a great deal if any Catholic leaders who ever claimed to believe they could receive revelation/inspiration I agree if they claimed to receive it and didn’t that would be a problem, but history is clear they didn’t receive it.
To properly evaluate Joseph Smith, the POSSIBILITY that he received revelation/inspiration must be entertained. Glenda’s comment clearly evidences that she doesn’t hold that as a possibility. Any post Biblical author of scripture is “ALL ABOUT POWER” and is not receiving revelation/inspiration from God.
I cannot follow him in this preconception and I do not believe I should. I have long found it reasonable even more likely that the successor of Peter and the Apostles could, like the apostles could, receive inspiration/revelation. The Catholic “successors” never could (no writing of scripture, no supernatural public revelation from God, …). To their credit (I think by in large they were good men), they never lied and claimed they could; but something ended and the church was no longer lead by Apostles/Prophets (those who speak for God through inspiration/revelation).
Claiming Joseph Smith was a prophet was the hardest thing for me to do as I left the Catholic Church. In retrospect, I do not know why, but perhaps you have offered a window into my unchecked assumptions from long ago.

In any case, Glenda’s comment above evidences to me that she does not even recognize that her comment condemns Peter, James, John, Paul, … just as surely as it condemns Joseph Smith. This IMO is due deep-seated and likely unconscious assumptions. Assumptions that I had to leave behind if I was going to give the CoJCoLDS a fair reading.

As you can accuse me of “denial,” I can accuse you of “deep-seated and unconscious assumptions.” Unlike your titling my position as “denial,” I have pointed to how your position underlines things you claim to believe. I think the evidence for your “deep-seated and likely unconscious assumptions” is stronger than the evidence for my “denial.”

I started outside the room that was the CoJCoLDS. My intellectual conclusion was and remains that Joseph Smith’s involvement in the institution of polygamy is poorly explained by appealing to power or sexual motives. Admittedly the “power” component here is IMO a poor explanation due largely to the distribution of power that Joseph Smith did and celebrated (as I mentioned before, he does not consolidate power in himself in contrast to other leaders including IMO the Pope). Beyond this, my intellectual conclusion was and remains that Joseph Smith as the naturalistic source of the BOM is essentially impossible. This firm conviction does not need to support the above info on the polygamy issue, but it is required to support another problematic issue discussed on this board, but not in this thread. And set beside the weighing of these issues intellectually, I also seek spiritual confirmation as I believe we all should.

Charity, TOm

The difference I see between the authors of the New Testament and Joseph Smith being an author of scripture, is that Smith’s “scriptures” are centered on Joseph Smith, while the NT authors are centered on Jesus. Smith rewrites passages from the OT and NT in their meaning and intent, to suit his own purposes.

Beyond that, this is a very odd way to view scripture. Anyone can write in pseudo early Middle English and call it scripture. St. Paul gives us warning in Galatians, to not listen to those who are are corrupting the word of God. Smith does that in spades. So don’t listen to him. Easy.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The difference I see between the authors of the New Testament and Joseph Smith being an author of scripture, is that Smith’s “scriptures” are centered on Joseph Smith, while the NT authors are centered on Jesus. Smith rewrites passages from the OT and NT in their meaning and intent, to suit his own purposes.

Beyond that, this is a very odd way to view scripture. Anyone can write in pseudo early Middle English and call it scripture. St. Paul gives us warning in Galatians, to not listen to those who are are corrupting the word of God. Smith does that in spades. So don’t listen to him. Easy.

I can’t remember where in the NT the authors of scripture instruct followers in the details of building them a home.

 

[BrotherofJared]

There may not be an answer to this question, but what I’d like to know is this: did the 14 year-old girl actually want to marry Joseph Smith? Did she have a choice in the matter?

I’m just curious. Would it make a difference to you if she did want to?

 

[BrotherofJared]

Polygamy, as practiced by the Utah Mormons, forced the marriage age of women to their teens. Modern polygamists face the same issue, of the natural balance of roughly 50/50 split in a community of men and women. So if you are collecting wives, the number of eligible women in their 20’s are married out of proportion to the number of men, and so the men start looking to marry the women younger, and younger. As we see with the modern communities of polygamists, they’ve reached the point of child brides. The same child bride scenario can be seen in polygamy as practiced in Islam. Girls and women become a limited commodity in patriarchal polygamist societies.

This is a rough generalization which assumes all polygamy is the same everywhere and in any period of history where it was practiced and this is not true. There are situations where the distribution of men and women have not always been equal. Though the population between men and women are fairly equal today, there is no reason to assume that one must dip into the kiddy pool to make up the difference. The age distribution of Joseph’s wives certainly indicated that older women can fill this gap. Over 15% of his wives were over 40 and over 50% of his wives where in his age group.

While 21% of Joseph’s wives were under 18, only 1 was under 16 and that one, the marriage was not broached by Joseph. He did not seek the marriage. And to top that off, there is no evidence that they ever consummated the marriage afterwards. There is no evidence of predator activity on Joseph’s part. All you have is conjecture based on the fact that he married a 14 year-old and that’s it.

All the evidence I have indicates that none of the polygamous marriages were for sex. I can see no other reason that he did it except for the reason he said he did it for.

 

[BrotherofJared]

While yes, whether or not a young woman or girl was fertile is a measurement for marriageable age, the more influencing factor was that the man was able to care for a wife and children. People are more often attracted to people closer to their own age. A 14 or 15 year old is going to view a man in his thirties as OLD. My daughter at that age thought 25 was old.

Anyway, a man of that era required training in a vocation, which usually lasted years, until he could earn his own living as a skilled tradesman or craftsman. So the age of marriage would fall in the 20-22 year range, as young women were waiting for their suitors to reach a point where the young men could earn a living. The parents of the young woman would not give their blessing for a suitor who could not show he could care for their daughter and her children. I think Joseph Smith faced this problem himself, which is why he and Emma eloped. He had no trade or craft, and no land to farm.

It’s easy enough to find resources for marriage demographics. The book, “Female Adolescence in American Scientific Thought, 1830–1930”, By Crista DeLuzio sites men being married around age 25, women not before they were 20. The normal method for raising children, being that around 10-12 years of age boys would be apprenticed or enter into an indenture servant arrangement, while girls would begin to train with their mothers and female relatives for maintaining a household and raising children.

Average age and an acceptable age to get married are two separate things. It was not unheard of for a woman go get married at 14 in Illinois in 1840. As you indicate it would be unheard of for a man to marry at that age because he could not provide for the wife. Joseph was not seeking to justify sexual gratification by marrying this 14 year-old or any of the others. But on this one count, it was the girls father that wanted the marriage as it was important to him to have his family connected to the prophet.

 

[BrotherofJared]

it is reasonable to expect that he would try to not have children with his wives, particularly the ones that were not already married to other men.

1. It was illegal.
2. It offended the Christian sensibilities of many of his followers.
3. It upset Emma. She threw fits over it and tossed some of his wives out of their home.

These are valid reasons to keep it hidden and to prevent the conception and birth of children that resulted from his polygamous unions.

If Smith’s unions were as sexless as you assume, why did he sneak around and lie to Emma and the public about it?

The best form of birth control is abstinence. You just listed 3 reasons why he would keep it secret. But to re-certify, the reasons he wanted to keep it secret was because:

1. It was illegal. He had enough problems. Why tell anyone about it? If it was just for sex, then find a few loose women and be done with it.
2. It offended the Christian sensibilities of his followers (and yet he shared it with them?) Actually, he shared it with the most offended, those that had been ministers before they became Mormons. It wasn’t the sensibilities he was protecting, it was an effort to keep it from running amok. Do you remember those guys who had the press that Joseph Smith caused to be destroyed because they were exposing him? Those guys were running amok with the concept, telling women it as a spiritual marriage and it was okay to have sex for a night. Joseph called them on it and they got excommunicated for it. Now there’s a reason to keep it secret.
3. Worried about Emma, well she knew about the first one. Joseph already knew it was going to be difficult for her. Keeping harmony in the home and obeying God’s commandments sometimes causes friction. (Do you think Abraham told Sarah that he was heading off with Isaac to sacrifice him?)

There is no plausible evidence that he had sex with any of the married women.

 

[BrotherofJared]

You leave out power. There are more instances than one where I think Joseph was going for how far people would follow him. What an amazing thing it must have been to have men turning over their daughters and wives to him, no?

Also, the historical records show that a doctor living in Nauvoo was performing abortions.

It’s incredible the lengths people will go to to cement their absolute position that they are right. How many straws will you grasp at before you realize that it’s just dead grass? Since no man “turned their daughters and wives” to him, I doubt that he ever exercised that “power.” And historical records that shows a doctor performing abortions means what?

 

[BrotherofJared]

You leave out power. There are more instances than one where I think Joseph was going for how far people would follow him. What an amazing thing it must have been to have men turning over their daughters and wives to him, no?

Also, the historical records show that a doctor living in Nauvoo was performing abortions.

I suppose any man of God is in it for the power. Such as Moses, Elijah (look mom, I got a chariot of fire), Elisha. What other possible reason would anyone become a prophet of God except for power?