Mormon church now regards The Nauvoo Expositor as a “credible resource”

[CV75]

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Exactly. That lack of full, wholehearted conversion suggests to me a lack of full and complete consent. That Joseph, himself, may have been uncertain about the rightness of the practice is also problematic, IMO. We claim that God values agency very highly, sometimes above all else. It's quite a tangent from the OP, but how does God value doing something that runs counter to your sense of right and wrong -- even if you believe that He commanded it? How do angels with flaming swords and threats of eternal destruction figure into God's idea of how we consent to the choices we make? Because we tend to use historical precedent to judge the morality of our own choices, what are the implications for the things we declare right and wrong today?

My thought about this is that divine atonement and agency are in existence-sustaining opposition as follows: Christ's atonement reconciles the depths and heights of all that can be chosen ("God and sinners reconciled"). Agency, which God gave us to use freely, achieves any of those depths and heights. We cannot have agency without atonement, and we cannot have atonement without agency.

The other opposing forces you mention (certainty and uncertainty, rightness and wrongness, consent and dissent, choice or acting and coercion or being acted upon) are equally essential to each other. In the Nephi-killing-Laban example, a compelling spiritual intervention from above was necessary to break the tension. A higher intelligence needed to compel a receptive lesser intelligence through reason or feeling. This is the beauty of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Historical precedent is not always appropriate to judge the morality of our own choices, the implications being that we need the Spirit to navigate the strange contexts and circumstances in which the Highest Intelligence of all has placed (D&C 93: 30 - 31) us lesser stars (Abraham 3:18 - 19). We may naturally tend to use historical precedent, but it is not requisite and there is a role for faith.

I should add that Abraham 3:18 - 19 shows there is no absolutely least star and no absolutely highest star ("there shall be another more intelligent than they"), and the Lord at the same time is "more intelligent than they all" when comparing His sphere with theirs (Kolob, which governs all of the same order as ours, is near unto God, but is not the same sphere or of the same order where He lives).

Edited August 11, 2025 by CV75

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you correctly. Are you saying that since we are all held to different moral standards in the use of our agency than that is evidence that God doesn’t care that much about agency?

No, sorry I was unclear.

I am more baffled that this world is supposedly a testing center to determine if we will choose to follow and worship God and to do what God says but it is set up so that it is borderline impossible for almost everyone to make a deliberate choice to follow God at all.

God talks about the importance of agency in the scriptures but the bulk of humanity over time do not get to choose who or what they worship.

In terms of behavior I understand much better than I used to why war and violence were so normalized and acceptable in Christianity for so long. There really wasn’t a way to opt out of it. The whole enterprise of this planet seems to have been designed to make humanity fail to prove that they are willing to obey God.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I never thought we had much agency once I studied basic psychology and childhood development.  So much of our behaviour, including (especially relevant to agency) our motivation, is formed in early childhood prior to the time when we are aware of such influences, let alone when we can actively choose to accept or reject such influences.  And even as adults, there are plenty of influences we are not consciously aware of and so cannot control.

I believe this world was designed to provide experiences that lead in the future to greater agency, just as kindergarten and elementary school don’t have much opportunity to learn any ultimate or even advanced knowledge, but can help lay the foundation for being able to learn more advanced knowledge later.  If one never learns to read, it will be harder and impossible in some cases to study and research advanced knowledge.

Even though it may appear to many we have more agency because we have more choices available to us, if our behaviour is as determined by outside influences as much now as in the past and given the impact of biological (genetics and the prenatal environment as well as the present physical environment around us…for example, the heat of summer has massive control over my behaviour 2-3 months out of the year) and childhood social influences on behaviour, my opinion is there isn’t much more agency in our lives than for previous centuries and millenniums.

But I see this life as more playacting in preschool than actual human adulthood as well, so the lack of agency at this time is not an issue.  I believe we are given the (mostly) illusion of agency here to prime our desire of it to help us be motivated to do the work that is coming according to Joseph Smith.  I believe the full endowment that Joseph taught will be comprehended only much, much later in our next stage of existence (see my signature) is the gateway to adulthood, some of us are given a shadow of it to create a sense of purpose and drive just as children look at the adults around and want to be someone cool or heroic or good when they grow up, which along with many other factors starts creating brain space for the needed knowledge and thought processes adulthood requires.  Others are given other shadows of things to come to develop abilities to accept the blessings/opportunities God has prepared for us as we grow into eternal human adulthood.

I like this approach but I can’t find it in scripture. There it is all promises and threats about what our choices will cause and how everything is at stake. Now I have an image of a 2nd grade Spelling Bee where the students are told that their success or failure in this will determine the course of the rest of their lives.

[let’s roll]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Tried it in many cases. Didn’t work.

How do you believe God would have us understand the phrase “nothing wavering” as it is used in His promise as recorded in the first Chapter of James?  Since we’re told that wavering disqualifies us from receiving “any thing of the Lord” it seems to me that an understanding of the phrase that aligns with His is of critical importance in our efforts to engage in Divine communication.

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

How do you believe God would have us understand the phrase “nothing wavering” as it is used in His promise as recorded in the first Chapter of James?  Since we’re told that wavering disqualifies us from receiving “any thing of the Lord” it seems to me that an understanding of the phrase that aligns with His is of critical importance in our efforts to engage in Divine communication.

It seems a contradiction from the lesson of a mustard seed, imo.  In the one case, we are told to start small and over time faith will grow.  In the other, it seems we need to have perfect faith from the beginning.

[let’s roll]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

For you, is there any point in discussing what one believes one accomplished by asking Deity about if a particular person or group are Deity’s prophets?  Such as these potential answers along with any nuances:  certain people were prophets who were misguided in somethings or they were fallen prophets (once were, but removed. From authority due to sin), God never called them as prophets, God has not given an answer yet, or there is no God to give an answer (there are others along the spectrum of belief, but hopefully these are enough to understand what I am thinking of.

Hi Calm, thanks for the feedback and the question.  My suggestion about asking God about who His prophets are was made in the context of saying that I think that route is much more effective than trying to form an opinion of someone based on historical documents, but I don’t think, in the context of good, better, best, that it’s the best practice.  

Frankly, since the role of a prophet is to share what God has instructed be shared, I don’t spend much time evaluating the prophet/messenger, all of my time is spent on the message.  If I receive confirmation the message is of God, I try to act according to the promptings I receive regarding how, in my circumstances, I can best implement the teaching.  Without that confirmation I put the message aside.  

And since all prophets are fallible, an answer from God that Moses or Joseph or President Nelson is a prophet is helpful, but not as actionable as confirmation that a specific prophetic teaching/call to action is of God.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

And since all prophets are fallible, an answer from God that Moses or Joseph or President Nelson is a prophet is helpful, but not as actionable as confirmation that a specific prophetic teaching/call to action is of God.

Does this mean you ask of God in any situation a prophet claims inspiration or do you sometimes assume fallibility is not an issue in a particular case and accept it as from God without a confirmation?  Just curious how other people handle this situation.

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Why pose your questions to mortals if God has promised to answer them?  And if the response is some variation of the lament of Laman and Lemuel, then isn’t the best advice an invitation to examine why that is so and focus efforts on making the necessary changes that will enable two way dialogue with the Divine.

 

I struggle with this part of the post.  I have been in this position many times, where God did not make such things known unto me, but it wasn't because I was disabling two way dialogue.  I was already praying morning and night.  I was studying my scriptures every single day.  I was consistently doing Come Follow Me.  I was listening to a GC talk every day.  Going to church every sunday, attending the temple, doing my calling, trying to do my ministering...

And yet, lots of questions weren't being answered.

Sometimes we can be like Job's friends in these situations:  always ready to blame the person struggling for the deficiency or struggle they have in their relationship with God.  But I don't think that's often a go-to position to assume.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, sorry I was unclear.

I am more baffled that this world is supposedly a testing center to determine if we will choose to follow and worship God and to do what God says but it is set up so that it is borderline impossible for almost everyone to make a deliberate choice to follow God at all.

God talks about the importance of agency in the scriptures but the bulk of humanity over time do not get to choose who or what they worship.

In terms of behavior I understand much better than I used to why war and violence were so normalized and acceptable in Christianity for so long. There really wasn’t a way to opt out of it. The whole enterprise of this planet seems to have been designed to make humanity fail to prove that they are willing to obey God.

I agree with you, it's baffling sometimes. 

I decided a while ago that our focus on mortality as a test in choosing 'the right' doesn't work very well.  I think that very little of our experience with agency (and this life) is about testing us against the doctrines of Christ. I think that most of the reason we are here is to just have experiences with agency in general, and specifically in ways that will help us in the next stage of development (towards becoming like Christ). 

I'm sure other people probably handle it by believing something else. 

[let’s roll]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems a contradiction from the lesson of a mustard seed, imo.  In the one case, we are told to start small and over time faith will grow.  In the other, it seems we need to have perfect faith from the beginning.

I can see how it might seem that way.  But I don’t see it as a measure of how certain the asker is that a Divine response will be received, but rather a measure of how committed the asker is to act on the response.

Think of someone with mustard seed faith who after asking for and receiving Diving guidance resolves to forever commit themselves fully to God.  Contrast that with a believer with a history of receiving promptings who bargains with God…take this trial away (or change this doctrine or policy, or give me now the certainty/clarity I require) and I will love you, require me to continue this trial (of circumstances or policy or uncertainty) and I will no longer believe.  

[let’s roll]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does this mean you ask of God in any situation a prophet claims inspiration or do you sometimes assume fallibility is not an issue in a particular case and accept it as from God without a confirmation?  Just curious how other people handle this situation.

If only I were that diligent. 🙂  If there is a clear call to action that would require me to change course the answer is yes.  And as I said the inquiry is along the lines of if this direction is from Thee, prompt me in the ways that I can best, in my circumstances, act on it.  Ironically, it was a prompting in response to just such an inquiry that led me to this board (I have very little on-line activity).

[let’s roll]

46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I struggle with this part of the post.  I have been in this position many times, where God did not make such things known unto me, but it wasn't because I was disabling two way dialogue.  I was already praying morning and night.  I was studying my scriptures every single day.  I was consistently doing Come Follow Me.  I was listening to a GC talk every day.  Going to church every sunday, attending the temple, doing my calling, trying to do my ministering...

And yet, lots of questions weren't being answered.

There’s a difference between receiving an answer of “not yet, my child” and the perception, or reality, of receiving no answer at all.  In the same spirit that Elder Bednar asked a couple asking for a blessing if they had faith not to be healed, we can ask ourselves if we have faith to wait for an answer until He is ready to provide it to us.  My experience is that all faithful disciples have experienced waiting on the Lord 

[manol]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I like this approach but I can’t find it in scripture. There it is all promises and threats about what our choices will cause and how everything is at stake. Now I have an image of a 2nd grade Spelling Bee where the students are told that their success or failure in this will determine the course of the rest of their lives.

Well said.

I no longer look to religion, at least not to its usage of threats and fear, when I want insight into how it all really works.  

Perhaps in 2nd grade something like this was taught:  "The choice is between accepting and obeying, or rejecting and disobeying, this religion's beliefs and rules.  Accept & obey and God will accept & reward you accordingly; reject & disobey and God will reject & punish you accordingly." 

Perhaps in a subsequent grade something like this is taught:  "The choice is between love and fear.  The effect of choosing fear is the creation of more fear, BUT the effect of choosing love is the creation of more love."  

Can you feel a difference between these two paradigms?  Does one induce fear, and the other induce love? 

Imo if a person adopts the second paradigm, doing so would not prelude participation in their religion of choice, though it might modify what that participation looks like. 

Edited August 12, 2025 by manol

[manol]

Oops accidental double post...

Pumping up my post count! 

 

Edited August 12, 2025 by manol

[gopher]

21 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Why pose your questions to mortals if God has promised to answer them?  And if the response is some variation of the lament of Laman and Lemuel, then isn’t the best advice an invitation to examine why that is so and focus efforts on making the necessary changes that will enable two way dialogue with the Divine.

Debate can be had about the efficacy of reviewing and interpreting historical records, but if the purpose is to use those interpretations to evaluate the bona fides of past or current prophets isn’t that better raised with Deity?

Yes, but what happens if you receive an answer from Deity?  Won't there be serious accountability then?  It seems better to spend your time relying on critics and apologists to provide those answers.  If they turn out to be wrong, you can blame them.  All you need to do is decide who is more persuasive (and possibly charming) at the time.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, let’s roll said:

How do you believe God would have us understand the phrase “nothing wavering” as it is used in His promise as recorded in the first Chapter of James?  Since we’re told that wavering disqualifies us from receiving “any thing of the Lord” it seems to me that an understanding of the phrase that aligns with His is of critical importance in our efforts to engage in Divine communication.

At the time I don’t think I was wavering.

I am also just tired of hearing that God can’t communicate that well or that I might have misunderstood or the like because I screwed up. If an omniscient being who sees the end from the beginning can’t anticipate my misunderstanding and jigger the communication a bit to make it clearer then I don’t think the fault is on my end. Do my prayers to God come through all garbled on his side in the same way? Actually that would explain a lot.

But I am pretty cynical of divine communication. I thought I was told certain things in what I thought were some of the clearest revelatory experiences of my life. Those things did not come to pass. If those were bad communication then the testimony inducing experiences I have received that were of a similar quality and character are also suspect. I heard the encouragement to cleave to the things you do know and not worry about things that are confusing but If the channel of communication doesn’t work when I can check out whether it is correct it is hard to trust the ones where I can’t.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, let’s roll said:

There’s a difference between receiving an answer of “not yet, my child” and the perception, or reality, of receiving no answer at all.  In the same spirit that Elder Bednar asked a couple asking for a blessing if they had faith not to be healed, we can ask ourselves if we have faith to wait for an answer until He is ready to provide it to us.  My experience is that all faithful disciples have experienced waiting on the Lord 

I agree there is a difference between those two things.  But unless the spirit specifically answers "not yet" then they can feel exactly the same.  But, my point wasn't really about how God is silent sometimes.  It was how other people, from the outside perspective, can take the silence and the struggle of another and use it as a judgment of their standing with God (like Jobs friends did) or sign of their lack of seeking an answer from God personally. 

 

[california boy]

13 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Hi Calm, thanks for the feedback and the question.  My suggestion about asking God about who His prophets are was made in the context of saying that I think that route is much more effective than trying to form an opinion of someone based on historical documents, but I don’t think, in the context of good, better, best, that it’s the best practice.  

Frankly, since the role of a prophet is to share what God has instructed be shared, I don’t spend much time evaluating the prophet/messenger, all of my time is spent on the message.  If I receive confirmation the message is of God, I try to act according to the promptings I receive regarding how, in my circumstances, I can best implement the teaching.  Without that confirmation I put the message aside.  

And since all prophets are fallible, an answer from God that Moses or Joseph or President Nelson is a prophet is helpful, but not as actionable as confirmation that a specific prophetic teaching/call to action is of God.

Do you think that personal revelation is less infallible than prophets claiming revelation?  

From what I have seen and felt, when it comes to actually knowing the will of God, it seems pretty messy and far from some kind absolute truth no matter who is claiming revelation/inspiration.

[california boy]

On 8/10/2025 at 9:01 AM, Pyreaux said:

Or, if no one remembers, historians Don Bradley and others like Christopher Smith, have suggested that some early plural or dynastic "marriage" sealings (notably with younger women, such as Fanny Alger) may have actually been adoption-style sealings, later historically conflated with plural marriage. The Church historians attempting compile lists of Joseph’s "wives" sometimes treated any female sealed to him as marital. Since the only category in most minds was “marriage,” the adoption-style relationships got lumped in. Or they were sealed and evolved into wives when they got older. 

Fanny Alger sealed at 14. There’s no known firsthand statement from Fanny about Joseph Smith or being his wife. Our information comes secondhand from people like Benjamin F. Johnson and Oliver Cowdery. Johnson called her a plural wife, but that was his later interpretation, decades after the fact. Oliver Cowdery famously called the relationship a “dirty, nasty, filthy affair,” but he was also an embittered ex-member at the time, and this was also 3 years after the sealing when Fanny was 17.

Helen Mar Kimball sealed at 14, in her own later writings (especially her autobiography and letters) explicitly says her sealing was not consummated and was for dynastic/familial purposes. “I was young, and they did not think it proper to enter into marriage relations.” She married another man later, with no suggestion of impropriety or of leaving Joseph.

 

On 8/10/2025 at 9:54 AM, webbles said:

This paragraph has some inaccuracies.

Fanny was born in 1817 (per her obituary in the family bible).  The earliest dating given for the relationship is 1833.  So, the she would have been at least 16, not 14.  The letter that Oliver Cowdery wrote was in January 1838 ( https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/oliver-cowdery-letter-to-warren-a-cowdery-olivers-brother-january-21-1838/ ) and Fanny would have been 21, not 17.  And Oliver Cowdery was excommunicated in April 1838, so he is not an ex-member at the time.  He also was questioned about the relationship in the summer and fall of 1837 and gave responses that made seemed like it was an adulterous affair (see minutes of his excommunication - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/minutes-12-april-1838/6 ).

The new research from Bradley and Smith show that the relationship may have started with an adoptive sealing but they still acknowledge that Joseph took it further than that.  They also put the sealing in 1836 so she would be 18/19 instead of 16.

From the Church essays, bold is mine:

Quote

Most of those sealed to Joseph Smith were between 20 and 40 years of age at the time of their sealing to him. The oldest, Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday. Marriage at such an age, inappropriate by today’s standards, was legal in that era, and some women married in their mid-teens.²⁶ Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,” suggesting that the relationship did not involve sexual relations.²⁷ After Joseph’s death, Helen remarried and became an articulate defender of him and of plural marriage.²⁸

^{Almost 15 means they were 14 years old when they were married.} 

" Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,”  The Church is just suggesting that no sex was involved.  But it is not really stated as a fact that there were no sexual relationships.  Perhaps it is because given how Joseph Smith cohorts that marriage to happen.  Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith thought that marriage to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball needed to happen?  Did he just wake up one day and decided he had to marry a 14 year old?  

With their access to all the archives on Church history and Church historians as well that have spent years studying these records, how did they come up with an entirely different answer about the age of these two girls and got Church leaders to agree to their documentation.??

 

 

Edited August 12, 2025 by california boy

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I never thought we had much agency once I studied basic psychology and childhood development.  So much of our behaviour, including (especially relevant to agency) our motivation, is formed in early childhood prior to the time when we are aware of such influences, let alone when we can actively choose to accept or reject such influences.  And even as adults, there are plenty of influences we are not consciously aware of and so cannot control.

I believe this world was designed to provide experiences that lead in the future to greater agency, just as kindergarten and elementary school don’t have much opportunity to learn any ultimate or even advanced knowledge, but can help lay the foundation for being able to learn more advanced knowledge later.  If one never learns to read, it will be harder and impossible in some cases to study and research advanced knowledge.

Even though it may appear to many we have more agency because we have more choices available to us, if our behaviour is as determined by outside influences as much now as in the past and given the impact of biological (genetics and the prenatal environment as well as the present physical environment around us…for example, the heat of summer has massive control over my behaviour 2-3 months out of the year) and childhood social influences on behaviour, my opinion is there isn’t much more agency in our lives than for previous centuries and millenniums.

But I see this life as more playacting in preschool than actual human adulthood as well, so the lack of agency at this time is not an issue.  I believe we are given the (mostly) illusion of agency here to prime our desire of it to help us be motivated to do the work that is coming according to Joseph Smith.  I believe the full endowment that Joseph taught will be comprehended only much, much later in our next stage of existence (see my signature) is the gateway to adulthood, some of us are given a shadow of it to create a sense of purpose and drive just as children look at the adults around and want to be someone cool or heroic or good when they grow up, which along with many other factors starts creating brain space for the needed knowledge and thought processes adulthood requires.  Others are given other shadows of things to come to develop abilities to accept the blessings/opportunities God has prepared for us as we grow into eternal human adulthood.

I see mortal agency in terms of scope and sphere rather than illusion and lack. Our sphere is not God’s sphere, but agency is as much a precious gift as the atonement of Christ. One spirit’s greater intelligence is borne out in its sphere of action, so they can ascend higher and also descend lower than the next spirit behind them in intelligence. But on the whole, our mortal sphere allows everyone in it to use our agency to choose Christ, beginning with the universally human capacity to act upon the light of Christ (whether attributed to him or not) and culminating with acting upon the fullness of His Gospel. The reality and essentiality of agency is borne out in that we may gain intelligence and another sphere of agency after this life, based only on what we begin with and gain here (D&C 130:18 - 19), beginning with a particle of faith.

It is said that the atonement of Christ protects agency (and it does), but His “at-one-ment” is the opposite of agency ("separate-ment”). The separateness of agency is reflected in its individuality and autonomy. But more importantly in its application, the act of choosing separates that which is chosen (our existence) from all that which is not chosen. The covenant relationship built upon the atonement of Christ unites that which chosen into one sphere by grace (John 17).

Edited August 12, 2025 by CV75

[Doctor Steuss]

On 8/9/2025 at 10:05 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Good.  Now, how do you judge people living in the past who have done things we don't approve of today?  Presentist like Ben McGuire apply current moral judgments to everyone in the past.

I judge them the exact same way.  To me, it's a moral constant that men shouldn't have sex with children.  It was wrong in the past.  It is wrong right now.  It will be wrong in the future.

I see no reason why we should shun away from applying our moral judgements on the past.  There's no reason anyone should make excuses for chattel slavery, the Holocaust, sex trafficking of children, and the myriad of other things that people in the past felt morally justified in doing, just because they didn't live right now.  My brain isn't superior to people who lived before me (if anything, it's a few rungs down), so there's no reason I should feel like every single person in the past had hobbled moral reasoning.  We can and should try to understand why and how their place in history and society caused their reasoning to become twisted in a way to make vile and abhorrent things seem acceptable (both to understand their worldview and to prevent us from adopting their reasoning[s]), but we shouldn't withhold judgement.

Edited August 12, 2025 by Doctor Steuss

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

From the Church essays, bold is mine:

^{Almost 15 means they were 14 years old when they were married.} 

" Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,”  The Church is just suggesting that no sex was involved.  But it is not really stated as a fact that there were no sexual relationships.  Perhaps it is because given how Joseph Smith cohorts that marriage to happen.  Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith thought that marriage to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball needed to happen?  Did he just wake up one day and decided he had to marry a 14 year old?  

With their access to all the archives on Church history and Church historians as well that have spent years studying these records, how did they come up with an entirely different answer about the age of these two girls and got Church leaders to agree to their documentation.??

[Re-done, I was talking about Fanny when I was supposed to be talking about Helen. That would have been weird.]

Even historians who are critical of Joseph Smith tend to agree that the Helen Mar Kimball sealing was not a typical “marriage” in the conjugal sense, and that the primary motive was a dynastic or covenantal union.

Helen’s own writings (especially her later reflections) make no mention of ever being with him unescorted and no cohabitation. She portrays it as a spiritual arrangement initiated and pushed by her father, Heber C. Kimball, to “link” his family to Joseph’s in eternity. Heber thought it had to happen soon before she was proposed to by another suiter. 

Don Bradley and others have pointed out that these "sealings" had assorted types, some were indeed “for time and eternity” (with full marital rights), while others were “for eternity only” and Helen’s case appears to be the latter.

Joseph’s marriage patterns included women of all ages and circumstances young, to elderly widows, to women already married which suggests that motives varied greatly, case by case.

I don't know why critics are so uncreative. I would assume all the marriages had to happen, because he was fulfilling his own theological understanding of “restoring all things” from biblical patriarchal precedent. If I were a critic, I might assume if Joesph is not a prophet, he's still modeling himself as one, and if he is a narcissist, and the great prophets had multiple wives, then to him numerosity equals status. For his legacy's sake, sealings had to happen even without romantic or sexual intent.

Historians often do treat “eternity-only” sealings as a distinct category from a full marital relationship, though the terminology can get tricky because of the marriage language that still gets used.

An “Eternity-only” sealing was more like an "Eternal Engagement" sealing than a fully realized "Eternal Marriage" because its all future-oriented - the bond was about afterlife association, not daily married life. Even critics have compared it to a non-sexual concubine in the sense of being “attached” to a man’s household line without conjugal relations. Historically accurate in some ancient contexts (a secondary wife without conjugal rights), but it still sounds deliberately provocative. Critics will seize on “concubine” to imply sexual exploitation even when a “non-sexual” qualifier is there.

Edited August 12, 2025 by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 hours ago, let’s roll said:

How do you believe God would have us understand the phrase “nothing wavering” as it is used in His promise as recorded in the first Chapter of James?  Since we’re told that wavering disqualifies us from receiving “any thing of the Lord” it seems to me that an understanding of the phrase that aligns with His is of critical importance in our efforts to engage in Divine communication.

I think the best explanation is that the author was writing in wiggle room. You don’t get the answer that you should? Well of course that’s your fault.

Edited August 12, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I judge them the exact same way.  To me, it's a moral constant that men shouldn't have sex with children.  It was wrong in the past.  It is wrong right now.  It will be wrong in the future.

I see no reason why we should shun away from applying our moral judgements on the past.  There's no reason anyone should make excuses for chattel slavery, the Holocaust, sex trafficking of children, and the myriad of other things that people in the past felt morally justified in doing, just because they didn't live right now.  My brain isn't superior to people who lived before me (if anything, it's a few rungs down), so there's no reason I should feel like every single person in the past had hobbled moral reasoning.  We can and should try to understand why and how their place in history and society caused their reasoning to become twisted in a way to make vile and abhorrent things seem acceptable (both to understand their worldview and to prevent us from adopting their reasoning[s]), but we shouldn't withhold judgement.

From Moroni 7:15 -19

“For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night. For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. …Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ."

I think if the person we consider to be a child in that time and place was generally not considered a child, that is not evil, that is the social mos, which does not require knowingly choosing evil over good; similarly, when we consider to be a child the person the people of yore considered to be an adult. Our societies work differently today, otherwise the mores and laws would have been the same back then.

We can learn from the past without making excuses for it. We can understand the minds of the past without condemning them. Those who fail to prevent the atrocities we see today and those who fail to resist participating in them are not necessarily exhibiting moral failure and twisted reasoning. They are equally swept up by forces and pressures they cannot perceive or understand which overwhelm their reasoning. They don’t know enough to do better. The powers that be that knowingly orchestrate good and evil, do know enough to do better. I think it easy to see that those who know well the law of the jungle and have had more practice and succeed than those who know the law of altruism.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

From the Church essays, bold is mine:

^{Almost 15 means they were 14 years old when they were married.} 

" Helen Mar Kimball spoke of her sealing to Joseph as being “for eternity alone,”  The Church is just suggesting that no sex was involved.  But it is not really stated as a fact that there were no sexual relationships.  Perhaps it is because given how Joseph Smith cohorts that marriage to happen.  Can anyone explain why Joseph Smith thought that marriage to 14 year old Helen Mar Kimball needed to happen?  Did he just wake up one day and decided he had to marry a 14 year old?  

With their access to all the archives on Church history and Church historians as well that have spent years studying these records, how did they come up with an entirely different answer about the age of these two girls and got Church leaders to agree to their documentation.??

 

 

I'm not sure why you quoted me.  I was talking specifically about the paragraph on Fanny Alger (the one I quoted).  Helen Mar Kimball was definitely 14 at the time of the sealing/marriage.  There is another 14 year old as well, Nancy Maria Winchester, though her evidence is a lot weaker.

Are you seeing somewhere in the church's articles saying that Fanny Alger was 14?