Actually, even that’s not consistent. Depending on the state and the topic (sex, marriage, working, drinking, driving, crime and punishment) a child may no longer be considered a child legally at 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12… I think there’s been a few kids prosecuted for crimes as adults even younger than that, though I’m not sure offhand.
I think we all understand that you are distinguishing the official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from various splinter groups. But they all share a belief in Joseph Smith’s story. Additionally, they self-identify as LDS or Mormons. Therefore, they are all Mormons, though the official church may not choose to include or acknowledge them. The official LDS church only has the authority to make the rules for the people who are part of and follow the official LDS church, not every human being on earth. They don’t own the word “Mormon” any more than the Catholics own the word “Christian”
Therefore it’s entirely legitimate for outsiders, having acknowledged the stance of the official LDS church, to continue to refer to splinter sects as Mormons as well. So obsessing over this isn’t really necessary, especially since the polugamous thing started with the official church and the founding members; it’s not like they never embraced it and it’s some shocking insult to associate polygamy with the official Mormon church at all.
Considering how insulted LDS members get when non-Mormon Christians of other faiths assert that Mormons aren’t Christians, even though all of them believe in Jesus Christ, you’d think they would be a little less concerned with perpetrating the same sort of thing on splinter LDS groups.
Certainly… but does this damn the priesthood itself? Of course not. Same thing with polygamy.
Do you really mean to say you can’t see value in working through sexual jealousy, or only that you can’t see value in doing it via entering into a plural marriage?
No. The age of adulthood is 18 in every state. That is the legal age of majority. This is also a quibble utterly without a point on your part. Trafficking in childre is still trafficking in children whether you want to call them children, or make exceptions for really mature and hot 12 year olds or not.
This is pretty much a Chewbacca strategy on your part. You tried to claim that one of them was raised as a regular Mormon, and not one of the polygamous splinter cults. That claim was wrong. Your personal indignation over whether the splinter cults should be called Mormon does not alter the fact that you were wrong in saying this woman was raised in the mainstream LDS church instead of a splinter cult. This whole angle who has the right to call themselves Mormon is just evasive and obfuscatory and irrelevant. By your standard, the FLDS can also call itself Mormon.
Except that you keep getting the two faiths mixed up. For the purposes of this thread, you have to get it clear that “*As a fundamentalist Mormon family, belonging to the Apostolic United Brethren Church,[13] the Browns’ faith does not align with the mainstream Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Since the practice of polygamy has been officially banned within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1890, the Browns have no affiliation with the church.” *
And, “* the AP Stylebook, which states, “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.””*
If you do have it clear, and you understand the difference, explain your lines such as "You keep repeating that they are all Mormons.
No one said they weren’t.
But you then go on to treat that fact as proof that they must therefore be brainwashed zombies being herded into marriages that they can’t see any alternative to.
If that were true, all women raised as Mormons would be brainwashed zombies who could be sucked into plural marriages at the will of any man who asked.
Since that’s plainly not the case, your point collapses."
Here, you clearly were conflating the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the Brown’s fundie-mormon-sect.
A statutory age of consent does not confer legal adulthood. You are conflating two different thinbgs. A 14 year old is still legally a minor, regardless of the age of consent.
And, most importantly, a 14 year old is still functionally and emotionally a CHILD, regardless of how mature you imagine them to be. Hiding behind bad age of consent laws does not morally justify trafficking them for sex to their uncles.
No, it doesn’t damn the priesthood itself, and this doesn’t necessarily damn polygamy itself. But what we don’t know is what percentage of people who choose this lifestyle are people who have these sorts of issues that might be best dealt with another way. If there are two kinds of polygamists, the kind who are forced into it and the kind who need professional counseling, how is that a ringing endorsement for it? And IMO we haven’t seen in this thread an example of a polygamist family that doesn’t fit into one of those two categories.
No, what I mean is that I don’t see the value in working through it by putting oneself into a situation where the feelings of jealousy, insecurity, and low self-esteem are exacerbated. That seems like an odd strategy to me.
Nice try. Age of consent to sex, so if the state says a 14 year old can say yes to sex, who the hell are you to say she can’t? And that’s what we’re talking about: sex. And you claimed there was a bright legal line, and you were wrong.
Janelle was not raised in the AUB or any other poly-friendly version of Mormon, and her entry into plural marriage caused big, painful rifts between her and her similarly non-poly-friendly Mormon family and friends.
I’m really tired of this, although you haven’t been so much the perpetrator.
I pointed out that the definition of “child” was fluid. Dio said it was fixed. I provided proof that the law itself disagrees.
I was saying NOTHING about WHO she agrees to sex with. Ask Hawaii, where 14 isthe age of consent, if that applies to a 14 year old agreeing to sex with a 40 year old.
For the record: not as a rule. But if a 14 year old in Hawaii decides she wants to, evidently the law says she can.
According to you & her, not according to the various cites. I already listed everything found under her, which includes several contradictatory statements.
No, we were talking about legal status of adulthood.
Do you actually think it’s ok to fuck 14 year olds, yes or no? Don’t give me any horsehit about some ass-backwards consent statutes, I’m asking whether you think it’s morally ok for adults to fuck 14 year olds. Can a 14 year old give valid and informed consent to be a 50 year old man’s 5th “wife?”
Aaron Bronson, an AUB representative …, *said *
Bronson, the AUB member, said
The … Apostolic United Brethren issued a statement from its leadership on … The AUB said …In 1998, Owen Allred called a news conference to denounce …But Drew Briney, an attorney who is helping the AUB with the land deal, *says *…From their press release
Like I said, little is known of them. They have made some interesting *statements *and claims, and like I said, they do not seem to be as bad as the FLDS- with whom they were afilated, but apparently no longer are.
You don’t have a problem with this? According to one former member, attorney John Llewellyn, “plural wives [of AUB men] are sent into nearby Hamilton to apply for welfare as single mothers. The informant reported that welfare checks are often taken directly to the priesthood leaders.”[1] Welfare fraud- and no control over their own funds?
Still, it is good to see that the AUB is no FLDS, despite their former close association.
Umm, no Stoid, actually in HA the Age isn’t normally 14, your cite is rather bad.
wiki “The age of consent in Hawaii is 16 years old. There is however a close in age exemption which allows those aged 14 and 15 to consent to sex with those less than five years older”.