An Ommission About Polyandrous Wives

[Dando]

The LDS Church says :
 

"Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married. Neither these women nor Joseph explained much about these sealings, though several women said they were for eternity alone. Other women left no records, making it unknown whether their sealings were for time and eternity or were for eternity alone"

 

 

 

The Church essays does not deny, it just omits that there is a third category of married women who did make it known.

 

For example, Patty Bartlett Sessions stated:
 

“I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for time and all eternity.”

 

 

 

[Hamilton Porter]

That's important why?

Edited November 17, 2014 by Hamilton Porter

[The Nehor]

That statement does not deny that there were other categories. The first category said "some" and the second was "others" which means "some not in the first some".

"Some" and "some not in the first some" does not equal "all".

[Nevo]

The Church essays does not deny, it just omits that there is a third category of married women who did make it known.

 

For example, Patty Bartlett Sessions stated: [snip]

 

I just answered this on your home board. Patty's original journal entry stated: "I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for Eternity," consistent with the essay. She later added "time and all eternity" after she was sealed to JS for time and all eternity, by proxy, in 1867.

 

See http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/patty-bartlett/

[HappyJackWagon]

That statement does not deny that there were other categories. The first category said "some" and the second was "others" which means "some not in the first some".

"Some" and "some not in the first some" does not equal "all".

True. That's an example of why some take issue with the purposely vague language in the essays.

[rockpond]

 

The LDS Church says :

 

 

 

The Church essays does not deny, it just omits that there is a third category of married women who did make it known.

 

For example, Patty Bartlett Sessions stated:

 

 

 

 

"Omissions" regarding polygamy have been the MO for the Church over the past century.  While the recent gospel topics essays reflect an improvement, they still leave plenty of details out.

[HappyJackWagon]

I just answered this on your home board. Patty's original journal entry stated: "I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for Eternity," consistent with the essay. She later added "time and all eternity" after she was sealed to JS for time and all eternity, by proxy, in 1867.

 

See http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/patty-bartlett/

Being sealed for "time" after Joseph's death, when "time" has ended, seems to miss the boat. OR the differentiation between time and eternity and time only sealings as outlined in the essay may not be completely accurate.

[The Nehor]

"Omissions" regarding polygamy have been the MO for the Church over the past century.  While the recent gospel topics essays reflect an improvement, they still leave plenty of details out.

Indeed, they left me out of the practice entirely. Jerks.

[rockpond]

Indeed, they left me out of the practice entirely. Jerks.

 

Ha!  Obviously not what I meant but good response.

[cinepro]

I just answered this on your home board. Patty's original journal entry stated: "I was sealed to Joseph Smith by Willard Richards March 9 1842 in Newel K Whitneys chamber Nauvoo for Eternity," consistent with the essay. She later added "time and all eternity" after she was sealed to JS for time and all eternity, by proxy, in 1867.

 

See http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/patty-bartlett/

Like HJW pointed out, can you explain how you can be sealed to someone for "time" when they are already dead?

[Calm]

It has been too long since I dd proxy sealings. Is it eternity only for them or time and eternity?

[Nevo]

Like HJW pointed out, can you explain how you can be sealed to someone for "time" when they are already dead?

 

I don't know how it is possible but that was apparently the wording that was used in Patty Sessions's proxy sealing ceremony.

[Dando]

I don't know how it is possible but that was apparently the wording that was used in Patty Sessions's proxy sealing ceremony.

 

Could one possibility be that she was sealed for time and eternity in 1842?

[Buzzard]

Does being sealed for time require marital relations?  Everyone assumes so, I don't .  The more I read about Joseph and the doctrine of plural marriage, the less I think it has to with sex. I'm not saying all of his plural marriages were devoid of it, but it sure seems like many/most did not involve physical intimacy.  Perhaps we could take Joseph at his word that he had to be dragged reluctantly into the practice.  It would follow that he would, even after plural marriage, confine almost all of his marital activities to his first marriage. 

[cinepro]

Does being sealed for time require marital relations?  Everyone assumes so, I don't .  The more I read about Joseph and the doctrine of plural marriage, the less I think it has to with sex. I'm not saying all of his plural marriages were devoid of it, but it sure seems like many/most did not involve physical intimacy.  Perhaps we could take Joseph at his word that he had to be dragged reluctantly into the practice.  It would follow that he would, even after plural marriage, confine almost all of his marital activities to his first marriage. 

 

From what I understand, being married to someone for time-only is no guarantee of sex, so you may be on to something. 

 

But as I've said before, I don't know why people are even taking the time to create these odd theories about Joseph being married/sealed to women (with the express purpose of "raising up seed") and not acting like he was married to them, when we have Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant who were also prophets and were also sealed to multiple women in marriage and had lots of kids with them.  If doing so is bad, then we've got a bunch of prophets who were behaving badly.  If it wasn't bad, then what is there to defend?

 

It would seem weirder to me if Joseph wasn't trying to fulfill his divine mandate.

Edited November 17, 2014 by cinepro

[Nevo]

Could one possibility be that she was sealed for time and eternity in 1842?

 

If that's what happened, then why did she state in her journal in 1860 that she was sealed to Joseph Smith on 9 March 1842 "for Eternity"? Presumably she recognized the difference. Why did she not mention it in her June 1867 affidavit? Why did she add the words "for time and all eternity" to her journal only after her proxy sealing to JS "for time and all eternity"?

 

It seems to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that she added the words "for time and all eternity" after she was sealed to the Prophet for time and all eternity—in July 1867.

[Dando]

Why did she not refer to Sylvia as "her daughter" until after 1867?  Perhaps she was only clarifying.  Wouldn't it make more sense to say "for eternity" in 1842 and then add that there was an additional sealing "for time" in 1867?

[Brian 2.0]

Does being sealed for time require marital relations?  Everyone assumes so, I don't .  The more I read about Joseph and the doctrine of plural marriage, the less I think it has to with sex. I'm not saying all of his plural marriages were devoid of it, but it sure seems like many/most did not involve physical intimacy.  Perhaps we could take Joseph at his word that he had to be dragged reluctantly into the practice.  It would follow that he would, even after plural marriage, confine almost all of his marital activities to his first marriage. 

 

Perhaps we could also take Joseph at his word that he did not practice polygamy.

[pogi]

But as I've said before, I don't know why people are even taking the time to create these odd theories about Joseph being married/sealed to women (with the express purpose of "raising up seed") and not acting like he was married to them, when we have Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant who were also prophets and were also sealed to multiple women in marriage and had lots of kids with them.  If doing so is bad, then we've got a bunch of prophets who were behaving badly.  If it wasn't bad, then what is there to defend?

 

It would seem weirder to me if Joseph wasn't trying to fulfill his divine mandate.

 

I think the issue for some people is that Emma didn't consent to it, while the other prophet's wives did.  Without consent, that would be adultery according to section 132:61

[cinepro]

I think the issue for some people is that Emma didn't consent to it, while the other prophet's wives did.  Without consent, that would be adultery according to section 132:61

 

Well then they need to keep reading to verses 64 and 65, where it's revealed that there is a special exemption for Joseph ("the one who holds the keys").  If his "wife" doesn't "receive" polygamy, then he's got the go-ahead to take additional wives anyway.  Just Joseph (and I guess whoever the current Prophet is).

Edited November 18, 2014 by cinepro

[webbles]

It has been too long since I dd proxy sealings. Is it eternity only for them or time and eternity?

It is for time and all eternity.  The only wording that is different is a live ceremony talks about multiplying (in the Biblical sense) and the proxy ceremony skips that part.

[Calm]

Thank you.

[jana at jade house]

Time and all eternity in all international temples? I will have to ask someone on Sunday but since all of our patrons are married for time before a magistrate before they are sealed, then I wonder if the wording perhaps is different here different because there is no marriage in a Dutch temple.

[Glenn101]

1 Corinthians 3:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

We won't know all of the answers in this life. We'll all get the chance to see what God thinks of Joseph when that glass becomes perfectly transparent for us. It is tough having to live by faith isn't it???

[Silhouette]

I had no idea that people COULD be sealed for just "time". I thought that was just regular old "marriage" and that "sealing" was for all eternity. What is the point of being "sealed just for time"? That's just like till death do you part. Or am I not getting something again?