Understanding Sealing vs. Marriage in Joseph Smith's Context: A Common Misinterpretation

The question of why some people view Joseph Smith's practice of marrying girls as young as fourteen as a bad thing when it was common back then is multifaceted. It involves delving into the differences between marriage and sealing as it was understood in the 19th century, as well as understanding the historical and cultural context in which these practices occurred.

The Distinction Between Marriage and Sealing

In the case of Joseph Smith, what happened was a common practice known as a sealing, not a marriage in the conventional sense. This distinction is crucial to understanding the historical context and the nature of the practice.

In Europe, for example, the legal authority to perform marriages is recognized by civil authorities. Therefore, a couple would go to a civil registrar to get married, and then might later proceed to a religious institution known as a temple to be sealed. This sealing was a different process with different legal and religious implications.

Common in the 19th Century But Not Without Controversy

Sealings during the 19th century were indeed common, but not always in the way modern sensibilities would interpret. Sealings involving young girls were often understood as eternity-only sealings, meaning they took effect only upon the death of the participant. This was different from a standard marriage that included conjugality.

Today, moral judgments are not limited by what was common in the past. Modern societies often have different standards and ethical considerations. Just as religious traditionalists may not see modern attitudes to issues like gay sex as morally acceptable, modern morality doesn't necessarily accept views that were prevalent in the past. Both religiously and rationally based moralities can consider certain actions to be immoral regardless of social approval.

Why It Was Bad, Morally Just Wrong

Some argue that Joseph Smith's actions were a form of standard marriage, which would include conjugality. However, this view is incorrect and overlooks the historical and ethical context. The marriage of a 14-year-old, even if seen as common, is inherently wrong when it is done against the girl's will and involves the man who is already married.

Joseph Smith was one of the most controversial figures in American history. Many view him as a con artist, and the thought of him marrying young girls is indeed disturbing. It's important to recognize that just because something was common in the past, it doesn't make it morally acceptable. Historical practices and contexts should be considered in the broader ethical and moral frameworks of the time.

Slavery and Its Historical Context

Another important aspect is the historical context of slavery. Slavery, which was common in the 19th century, was horrific and inhumane. Practices such as brutal treatment, torture, and forced labor were common, but that does not make them morally acceptable. Similarly, the practice of young girls marrying older men in certain contexts was common but still morally reprehensible when it involved coercion and legal violations.

In conclusion, the practice of marrying young girls in the 19th century, particularly in the context of Joseph Smith's involvement, is a complex issue that requires a nuanced understanding of historical and ethical contexts. While it was common, it was not morally acceptable, and modern standards of morality continue to judge such actions as wrong.