Well, thank you for the legal clarifications, dalight. Indeed, most of the pre-1890s didn't see age-of-consent laws.
But you know, this whole discussion would be akin to someone railing vs. child-labor slavery in the pre-1865 years...only for you to come on with your Wikipedia quotes claiming that it wasn't "technically" child-labor slavery because these black kids were, after all, considered only "chattel" or "property."
IOW, you seem to fall back into the sorry immoral stance that "whatever's legal is moral" position...Oh sure, you tried to offer this weak disclaimer of "I am not saying that this was good or proper..."...but your sorry bottom-line was in your learned "lecture" mode line: "Make sure you know your facts before making random charges..."
C'mon, really? You would "lecture" somebody describing in the worst possible way child-labor slavery (pre-1865 years) just because it was "legal" then?
Really?
Really?
(I think the slave industry would have absolutely "loved" your legal aid or PR spin back then!)
Ive been reading a lot about the reason beck might be going to Jerusalem
besides the fact he will make a packet from the saps he “Barnums”
Several times I have come across the idea that Beck thinks he is one of the 2 prophets who get killed in Jerusalem and lie around dead for 3 1/2 days
Thoughts on this ???
You still aren't very interesting. But, you have managed bizarre, and unhinged. As logic, reason and fairness are not necessary in the conduct of your argument, I don't know where to go.
You have accepted that the rape charge is unfair, you haven't recognized that such a charge would never have been considered or laid at the time because such a marriage would neither be considered immoral or illegal, with the exception that in the case of Joseph Smith, he was already married. People seriously, and strenuously objected to this.
But, strangely, your position is what was considered the Liberal position at the time. But, then, some 20 years later, the Republican party was the Liberal party and the Democrats were the Conservatives. The rise of the primacy of the rights of the individual, the core value of the Liberal philosophy started in a good place to us all now, in the dignity of the individual and the basic right to self determination which is offended by the concept of life-long imposed servitude as property.
Yet, this same philosophy became extended to form the basis of the primacy of the woman's interest over the life of her unborn child that is the foundation of the "right" to abort. Something that I hope we can agree offends the basic dignity of life, yet these "rights" are but extensions of "rights" that we as 21th Century individuals find truly basic.
Oddly, though, it was not Jewish custom that led exclusively to the acceptance of the one man, one wife norm that we cherish today. In fact, this was a Roman sensibility that became increasingly more accepted in Jewish and then early Christian society. Augustine of Hippo came out and clearly defined this norm, "That the good purpose of marriage, however, is better promoted by one husband with one wife, than by a husband with several wives, is shown plainly enough by the very first union of a married pair, which was made by the Divine Being Himself." And by the 5th Century, Polygamy was only infrequently practiced in either the Jewish or Christian communities. The Jewish community accepted the absolute ban of this practice by Rabbi Gershom in the year 1000CE. It was this 1000+ year history that Joseph Smith assaulted, but he was by no means the first or the last, as the proponents of gay marriage are following that outrage with the greater outrage of legalizing plural marriages once again. But, understand, it is the dignity of women that is offended by plural marriage, not the explicit teachings of the Bible. But, as Augustine pointed out, both the man and the woman's dignity and respect for each other is best served by the one man, one woman formulation and this has become a basic tenant of both Judaism and most branches of Christianity.
As for Mormonism, God puts these things here for a reason, and its up to us to discover and understand this reason. Islam is here to do the role they are doing which is declared in Genesis. Perhaps the why is as you understand it, simply to teach us to say no. So, I can't and won't fault you for doing this. But, I believe your behavior is undercutting your message.
BTW, David Einhorn is one of my hero's from that time, was threatened with being tarred and feathered literally for taking an anti-slavery stance in his congregation in Philadelphia. However, Einhorn was considered a Universalist even though he was a Jewish Rabbi and his ideas animated the core of what is called Classical Reform Judiasm, which with the Quakers and Unitarians and others were the primary opposition to slavery at the time.
One can imagine what you would say about these people, but understand that you are adopting the ethics and morals they held dear. And there is a reason, it is the message is more important than the messenger.
Keep care.