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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just use the reference i gave about women and see that they are not all alike and very necessary to us for many reasons. Some which remain unknown.

It is a negitive term used to put believers in a bad light. The definition may fit but other terms should be used instead. Have you ever won a verbal battle by saying the worst hurtful things you can come up with? No

I would say that the majority of people think that this whole thing is pretty sick.
But it's actually not all that uncommon. I don't necessarily think that it's right, but people didn't always live for as long as they do now. When people only lived to be 30 years old, they got married and had kids young. It's just how things were. Had it of been different, population would have died out.

Most people and places have kept with the times and it's no longer accepted. Things change, and we move on.

Not sure how the vices of a man condemn a religion...


Personally my opinion is that marrying 14 year olds was part of the times.... But it was a bad part. A grown man can obviously tell when a child is a child regardless of era.

a reply to: network dude

That's taking the entire nation into consideration and the more densely populated East Coast, for the times, would've been seeing a more appropriate marriageable age. The Midwest and West Coast, however, in the early to even late 19th Century were completely different. Just getting there was extraordinarily hard and full of peril (think Oregon Trail) and the bulk of the people motivated to move to the west were primarily miners and loggers. This made for a really uncomfortable distribution of males to females in these areas. I remember when I was in cultural geography the shock story was documents proving that a 33 year old man married an 11 year old in Oregon in the 19th Century. We were asked to reflect on that one, lol. I cannot remember the exact ratio of male to female in the Old West but I think it was something like 10+ to 1. What frequently happened in the West was awfully young girls getting married to much older men or a mail-order bride.

Not a fan of the Daily Mail but it's the first source that popped up discussing this subject and the maps from the time actually show to things. That huge disparity in male to female in the West and the difference in populations overall comparing East to West on the second. That's why your graph is going to show an older marrying age as still being typical. Most women did marry at around 18 at the time. Just not in the Wild West.

Hope that clears up the confusion. Odds are, if you had a family member getting hitched at a very young age, your family was likely from the MIdwest or West Coast. This is also one of the reasons behind age of consent laws being put in place to prevent more 11 year olds marrying 30 somethings.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

One of my two grandmothers married at 16, barely 16.

Children in general grew up faster back in those days because they had to for various reasons. A 14-year-old then and one now are going to behave a lot differently because a 14-year-old back then had to shoulder a lot of responsibility one of our soft couch potatoes would crumble under.

In other words, it's a mistake to assume that something we view as wrong today was necessarily wrong back in the day. Societies change as do the people living in them.

As for polygamy, now that we have decided legally that any two people can marry, the next fight is to expand that to any people. Expect polygamy to become legal in short order. In fact, both Mormon fundies and Muslims have good standing between equal treatment AND religious freedom with the Mormons having the best case as they were forced to give up their religious rights in order to gain statehood in clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

a reply to: network dude

I noticed the source cited for that graph only has data listed from 1890 on yet the graph extends all the way back to 1790. I smell BS.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Speaking the truth is often hurtful. That doesn't mean you shouldn't say it. If religions are really just very large cults, then say that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick



Speaking the truth is often hurtful. That doesn't mean you shouldn't say it. If religions are really just very large cults, then say that.

Whatever. it means you show some respect for your fellow humans by being tactful. One thing i know for sure is that that ugly thing we call religion can get very powerful and poking a bee's nest is not wise. The correct meanings can be said in a manner that does not inject the fight or flight response that those words bring to a conversation. pot calling kettle black

a reply to: WhiteAlice

When I went looking for that information, I fully expected to find that in the early years, the ages were much much younger. But that is not what I found. And since I did find it on the internet, I am sure it's true.

And Intrepid: Nobody seemed to have any issues with Jerry Lee Lewis did they?
I heard all about he and his cousin. Didn't he play the piano or something?

Deny Arrogance:
Use the Google. It's what I did. No conspiracy here, just the facts ma'am.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Annee

I know your beliefs. I was just fleshing out my point since you posted a definition that didn't gel with what I was saying.

OK.

I use what I call "elevator" thinking. Each floor has a different perspective. What you "see" depends on what floor you're on.

We just chose different floors on that one

a reply to: deadeyedick

So you advocate dancing around issues because it may offend someone? Sorry, that isn't me. I'll tell you what I think is the truth, feelings be damned. The truth doesn't care if it upsets you, it just is. If someone attacks me because of what I said, it's their fault.

So instead of feigning offense, how about explain why a religion can't be a cult. If you want me to use a nicer word, then what is that word? Keep in mind whatever word you say here, I can also apply to what we traditionally call a cult (since you haven't established a basis that a religion and a cult are two different things). So if you want to call them religions, then I get to call any group a religion. Even groups like Heaven's Gate.

Though I will agree that we can call them all mythology, if you want to go with that. That describes both cults and major religions.

a reply to: Annee

I mean there IS actually a way to tell a cult from a religion. At least in the United States. A religion has tax exempt status. Cults can't get that. But getting tax exempt status is an arbitrary definition that the politicians decided on.

But at the heart, all religions believe a bunch of extreme ideas (they don't mesh with the laws of physics, so that's pretty extreme), can be dangerous (middle east, westboro, scientology's general outlook, etc) and are a group of people. If you say that the adjective "small" in front of group of people is relative, and therefore you can remove it from the definition, then they are the same thing. So now someone needs to define at what point does a cult get big enough, that we call it a religion now instead of a cult?

Example: In 1993, Scientology gained tax-exempt status and is now considered a religion by the government. But many people can remember when Scientology started. Since we know the history of the "religion", we know that it too started as a cult (thanks to one L. Ron), but now is considered a major religion.

a reply to: Krazysh0t I advocate showing respect and i try to live by the saying kill em with kindness but i do fail alot.

Logic fails to explain the true nature of our existance. You can call them a cult all you want it is a free country. My point was to show you that no meaningful debate will take place after you call someone names. You want me to tell you how to banish all religion. How to convince every religious person that they are wrong but i can not because one has to know all the facts before taking a stance like that. It is hard to accept that we do not know everything. We are mere mushrooms.

When science takes on the role of knowing all the pitt falls in alchemy i have foung or the positive effects suffering can have on a person and all the unknowns that religion was formed to control then we can get rid of religion. When science can come tto terms with the fact we have sould then we can steer away from religion. Until then i know for a fact that not only does religion enslave us it also keeps us alive beyond the realm o f our scientific knowledge. This place was designed to be controlled and this time GOD has givin reign to those under him to have more control. We could be way worse off with religion taking an even more active role but mercy has been granted just about as far as it can be stretched givin the true nature of reality.

a reply to: network dude

Not sure if I understand what you're trying to say here but your graph is true. It just would look differently if it was split between the Western and Eastern sides of the nation. The population density of the East coast allows for that "most common" age of marriage to be bumped up as the West was sparsely populated. Make sense?

Shortage of women: blogs.lt.vt.edu...

Page 3 is discussing the phenomena of mail-order-brides in the West: www.law.upenn.edu...

In regards to Smith, knowing that the ratio of men to women was so imbalanced in the West, it totally paints kind of what Smith did. This guy claiming to be a prophet or whatever was basically running around with about a dozen wives in areas that were short on women. Puts a whole lot of perspective on Smith. I also wonder how much it affected the population in Utah today. If the early Mormons there were polygamists with multiple wives being pulled from the population, did it have any influence in why Utah is viewed as the "Mormon state" today?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t I advocate showing respect and i try to live by the saying kill em with kindness but i do fail alot.

Respect is earned not given.

Logic fails to explain the true nature of our existance. You can call them a cult all you want it is a free country. My point was to show you that no meaningful debate will take place after you call someone names. You want me to tell you how to banish all religion. How to convince every religious person that they are wrong but i can not because one has to know all the facts before taking a stance like that. It is hard to accept that we do not know everything. We are mere mushrooms.

It's only an insult to someone who wants to deny reality. In logical debate, an insult is only an ad hominem if it isn't supported by evidence of the claim. Technically, you are allowed to call someone stupid if you first prove the stupidity. Also, the only reason cult is considered an insult is because it is considered the fringe, but I see it differently. I see them as the beginnings of new religions. A cult is just a baby religion.

When science takes on the role of knowing all the pitt falls in alchemy i have foung or the positive effects suffering can have on a person and all the unknowns that religion was formed to control then we can get rid of religion. When science can come tto terms with the fact we have sould then we can steer away from religion. Until then i know for a fact that not only does religion enslave us it also keeps us alive beyond the realm o f our scientific knowledge. This place was designed to be controlled and this time GOD has givin reign to those under him to have more control. We could be way worse off with religion taking an even more active role but mercy has been granted just about as far as it can be stretched givin the true nature of reality.

Alchemy? Alchemy was proven false hundreds of years ago by science. So unless you are talking about chemistry (what alchemy evolved into), your point doesn't make any sense there.

The concept of a "soul" was invented by religion. Science cannot prove something that was invented in someone's imagination. If there really IS more to our lives than our physical bodies, that remains to be seen, but the word "soul" certainly wouldn't describe. I say this because nothing that humans have imagined and claimed to be true without supporting evidence has turned out to be true.

By the way, none of these ramblings defines a clear difference between a cult and a religion.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Indigent
Ummm back then a 14 year old had live half her expected life span

Wasn't the life expectancy something like 25?

This is a completely false statistic.Until the modern age of medicine many kids died at a young age.This lowered the "average" considerable.The majority of the others lived approx the same average as now if not longer.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tax exemptions only tells that US accept a religious view as a religion and nothing more. That alone as telling if beliefs are religion, sect or cult is not really what doctorines are really about it just says thereare certain amount of people who believe in something and institution they believe has a tax exempt. Shallow..

What is a cult or dangerous sect there are many studies and there are few things which can help to recognize those from the religions.

Movement / Sect / Cult isolates themselves geographically or socially from main society, building their own areas where to live and follow their doctorine

Converts become more and more addicted to the consept of reality inside the sect / Cult

Sect / Cult makes very strict withdraw from the main society, when there are God chosen and others are from the Devil, one is divine and more worthy than others

Others make decisions for you and about your life

Leaders justifies their decisions and demands with an authority from God/Gods. Their social status within the community is undeniable and must be followed ( prophets )

Control, how much your daily life is controlled by others, reporting your actions, thoughts and feelings to someone else with higher status

Scapegoating, it's all your fault always

Using Fear, threateninng and scaring believers with real and imagined enemies, (refusing )medical care, government authorities and people who have left the sect/cult .

Apocalyptic view when no one else but those who believes the message is going to survive, all the others goes to hell. Live outside sect/cult is same as living in Somorra/Gomorra

Censorship, is there a subjects which is forbidden to read and study.

Cut off the family members who have decided to leave

How important it is to sect/cult to have new members, how much and how important converting is and in what scale it is happening.

Cover up organizations and charity organizations with different names to bring more money and converts to community

Follow the money.. sect/cult owns a lot. Members need to donate or pay as being a member, testaments and other offerings

Sexual manipulation, how much authority leaders have in your sex life

Pressure towards those who have left the cult/sect.. nigh callings etc

Acceptance of violence when its done by those with higher status

Unability to accept any raillery when its about their group, leader or doctorine


Eileen Barker english professor of sociology has studied these and wrote a book.. google her out.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just for clarification. I was brought up mainly in Science of Mind - Power of Positive thought. Metaphysics in the 1950s - when most people had no clue.

I'm sure Religious Science (not Scientology) was considered as "Cultish". And still is. It's perception.

Now known as The Center for Spiritual Living.

14 is not at puberty these days....a bit of research shows the current aprox ages much less/sooner than that.

Still...doesnt make that right tho...

originally posted by: Hefficide

With this consensus I am left to ask, why then did the Church keep this secret for nearly 200 years?

It wasn't the age of the bride, it was the polygamy, and marrying already married women that they tried to keep secret.

Regardless, the Mormon church has much darker secrets than these, they will likely never see the light of day. They will do anything, ANYTHING to keep it that way.

imo