Historian Benjamin Park: Would Joseph Smith be "Progressive" or "Conservative" in Today's Political Landscape?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Early sealings were being sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife,

Do you mean some or for young women or what?  

The first (most likely) 5 or so sealings were to, iirc, married women who were pregnant and one widow.  

Don Bradley pointed out the date for Louisa Beamann, the usual first sealing, is suspect as the source isn’t that credible when it comes to date and his description of where it occurred includes a building that wasn’t constructed or used till a year or more later (going solely from memory here, so could be wrong, I welcome corrections).  Don gave a FAIR presentation on this, I will try and remember ti get the link later.

Edited Thursday at 10:46 PM by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Seems like we do.  From Joseph's journal:

From footnote 457:

I would be curious about @Notatbm's assessment of this item.

The footnote characterizes “w-r m-r-r-d” as shorthand.  What makes you think it was a "cipher?"  It has a fairly clear phonetic correlation to "were married."  And what would the need be for a cipher about Joseph being sealed to Emma?

I think the inference would need to be that Joseph and James were married to their respective wives (Emma and Harriet).

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that we can infer from that that Joseph was sealed to Emma at that time.  But it doesn't explicitly state her name.  So, there could have been another woman.  There's other circumstantial evidence that shows Joseph and Emma were sealed around then as well.  But we don't have actual documentation that they were sealed together.  We have to make an educated guess.

And cipher might be too strong of a word but Taylor shorthand is not easily readable.  If the researchers hadn't footnoted it, I would not have known that those scriggly lines actually read out as "w-r m-r-r-d".  Willard Richards also does the same thing on June 12, 1843 when he writes about Joseph's sealing to Rhoda (his sister) and his (Willard) sealing to Susan Liptrot.  That's one of the few contemporaneous records that indicate Joseph practiced polygamy (though it isn't positive because it doesn't say who married Rhoda) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/263

[webbles]

41 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Early sealings were being sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony. This theory reconciles the sealing power’s restoration in 1836 with the timing and suggests that the sealing power, was initially for adoptive purposes, was later reinterpreted for polygamy. So, when Joseph Smith was first sealed to the Partridge sisters, likely as part of the early practice. The second sealing was at Emma's demand for a ceremony, though perhaps unnecessary being they were already sealed together.

What's the source for the Eliza Jane Churchill Webb's testimony?  Because I have read that Fanny Alger's marriage might have started more like an adopted daughter (in the Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy volume) but I don't recall him using any testimony from Webb for it.

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you mean some or for young women or what?  

The first (most likely) 5 or so sealings were to, iirc, married women who were pregnant and one widow.  

Don Bradley pointed out the date for Louisa Beaman, the usual first sealing, is suspect as the source isn’t that credible when it comes to date and his description of where it occurred includes a building that wasn’t constructed or used till a year or more later (going solely from memory here, so could be wrong, I welcome corrections).  Don gave a FAIR presentation on this, I will try and remember ti get the link later.

Yes, not all, not the early civilly married women whom Joseph didn't civilly marry. Yes, Louisa Beaman as per Don Bradley, which would also explain why the Partridge sisters were sealed twice, I suggest one was an adoption and the other a marriage at the request of Emma. And Helen Mar Kimball too, the idea that Joseph Smith may have used the concept of adoptive sealings to make his proposals. Helen Mar Kimball may have believed the marriage was more of a formal ceremony than a real marriage, initially. I have the Wheat and Tares interview but I bet the FAIR version might be better. 

Edited Friday at 02:06 AM by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

6 minutes ago, webbles said:

What's the source for the Eliza Jane Churchill Webb's testimony?  Because I have read that Fanny Alger's marriage might have started more like an adopted daughter (in the Secret Covenants: New Insights on Early Mormon Polygamy volume) but I don't recall him using any testimony from Webb for it.

https://wheatandtares.org/2024/11/25/re-writing-origins-of-polygamy-fanny-alger-affair

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

I agree that we can infer from that that Joseph was sealed to Emma at that time.  But it doesn't explicitly state her name. 

Yes, it is not explicit, but I think it's hard to suggest an alternative reading.

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

So, there could have been another woman. 

I don't think there is any evidence for that.

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

There's other circumstantial evidence that shows Joseph and Emma were sealed around then as well.  But we don't have actual documentation that they were sealed together.  We have to make an educated guess.

I think the only educated guess is Emma.

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

And cipher might be too strong of a word but Taylor shorthand is not easily readable.  If the researchers hadn't footnoted it, I would not have known that those scriggly lines actually read out as "w-r m-r-r-d".  Willard Richards also does the same thing on June 12, 1843 when he writes about Joseph's sealing to Rhoda (his sister) and his (Willard) sealing to Susan Liptrot.  That's one of the few contemporaneous records that indicate Joseph practiced polygamy (though it isn't positive because it doesn't say who married Rhoda) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/263

I keep going back to the assassination of Caesar on the floor of the Senate.  We seem to generally accept, on evidence far inferior to what we have about Joseph, the historicity and particulars of the incident, and the participants.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

bet the FAIR version might be better. 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/2020-2024-fair-conferences/august-2023-fair-conference/knowing-brother-joseph-how-the-historical-record-demonstrates-the-prophets-religious-sincerity
 

That topic isn’t the primary focus, so it may not be as detailed.  For those who don’t want to read the whole presentation, here is the section on dating the Beamann (edited:  I never spell her surname correctly) sealing:

Quote

There are several reasons to question Noble’s dating. Noble was, by the admission of his descendant biographer[ii], terrible with dates. So, there you go, guys, this is the guy we’re relying on for the chronology of Nauvoo polygamy, and what do we know about him? That he’s terrible with dates. We also know that (just to confirm that he’s terrible with dates) his own first plural marriage happened to be on the same day that he said Joseph’s was, two years later — which would be a strange coincidence.

Noble actually gives a variety of dates. The reason April 5, 1841 became the popular date is because that happened to be the date in the affidavit that Andrew Jenson had. But there are other affidavits, there are other statements, and they give two different days of the month, two different months (April and May), and three different years ranging from 1840 to 1842. In fact, the only thing these dates have in common is they are all in the spring.

The Crucial Detail

That detail — that they’re in the spring — is the card that brings the whole house down. In the Temple Lot Case, Noble was asked to testify, and he was all over the map and the dates that he gave for the marriage, but then they asked him, “Where did it occur? I know you don’t remember when it occurred, but how about where did it occur?” And he says, “it was in Nauvoo,” and the person says, “At whose house?” and he says, “At mine.” But research by Gary Bergera indicates that Noble “moved his family, including presumably Louisa, to Nauvoo sometime after September 1841.” I also found that the descendant biographer found the same thing and says the same thing in the biography:

“Later in 1841 [after September], the Noble family moved to Nauvoo and lived in a temporary log house prior to the construction of their permanent home.”[iii]

He says Noble moved his family, including presumably Louisa, to Nauvoo sometime after September 1841. And the descendant biographer says it was after that point that he built his house.

If Joseph was married to Louisa Beamann at the Noble’s house at Nauvoo, and the Noble family didn’t move to Nauvoo till after September 1841, and the marriage occurred in the spring, then the spring in which it occurred could not have been the spring of 1841. So, we move that one back to 1842 and that changes the order of these early marriages.

 

Edited Thursday at 10:45 PM by Calm

[ttribe]

Benjamin Park puts out some interesting stuff; I'm not sure this is one of them.

[Notatbm]

23 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Sorry, you are saying the "victim" Helen Mar Kimball is lying? Helen described her sealing to Joseph as being "for eternity alone." 

Yea she is a "Victim." I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls, but hey anything to defend Joseph. The poem below written by Hellen Mar Kimball doesnt portray someone who is happy nor really had a choice in the whole matter. I mean what 14 year old girl is going to want to marry some 38 year man? Answer: None

"I thought through this life my time will be my own The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free, And as the past hath been the future still will be. To my guileless heart all free from worldly care And full of blissful hopes and youthful visions rare The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept From sight and all looked fair... ...but pitying angels wept. They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold. And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled, Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise, Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price; Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny, And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes, And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart, Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot; But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown, Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn. Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw A glory in obeying this high celestial law, For to thousands who’ve died without the light I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright. I’d been taught to reveire the Prophet of God And receive every word as the word of the Lord, But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth, I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth."

23 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Under the developing Latter-day Saint theology of the period, a civil marriage and an eternal sealing served different purposes. Joseph and Emma could be legally married for years before being sealed for eternity. Their May 1843 sealing did not mean that their previous civil marriage had been invalid.

Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them. The whole doctrine is for polygamy to be used as a method to rais up seed which means to have sex with his wives. Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them.

23 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Early sealings were being sealed to Joseph Smith as an adopted daughter, not a wife, based on Eliza Jane Churchill Webb’s testimony. This theory reconciles the sealing power’s restoration in 1836 with the timing and suggests that the sealing power, was initially for adoptive purposes, was later reinterpreted for polygamy. So, when Joseph Smith was first sealed to the Partridge sisters, likely was part of the early practice. The second sealing was at Emma's demand for an official ceremony, though perhaps unnecessary being they were already sealed together.

Praise to the man.

Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course

1. Helen’s Explicit Use of the Word "Wife"

In her later journals, public defenses of polygamy, and autobiographical letters, Helen directly referred to herself as a plural wife. For example, in an 1881 autobiographical letter detailing the arrangement, she signed her name as "Whitney Smith" to acknowledge both her earthly husband (Horace Whitney) and her sealed husband (Joseph Smith). [1, 2, 3]

Edited Friday at 07:54 PM by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

On 10/29/2026 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

Seems like we do.  From Joseph's journal:

From footnote 457:

I would be curious about @Notatbm's assessment of this item.

Does the doc say her name at all? From what I understand is she was not sealed to Joseph....For sure not before 22 other women were we do know that is pretty much settled. After the 22 initial wives... possibly. 

On 10/29/2026 at 12:35 PM, smac97 said:

The footnote characterizes “w-r m-r-r-d” as shorthand.  What makes you think it was a "cipher?"  It has a fairly clear phonetic correlation to "were married."  And what would the need be for a cipher about Joseph being sealed to Emma?

I think the inference would need to be that Joseph and James were married to their respective wives (Emma and Harriet).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Notatbm]

On 10/29/2026 at 12:10 PM, webbles said:

We know he didn't have sex with all of his wives.  Several of them stated so.  And if we look at the behavior of young brides with older men in Utah, it is extremely rare to find them having children until they are 18+.  And then when you look at the Temple Lot case where all the woman who testified all said they were "husband and wife in deed" and we find that Helen was not included, even though she was in town and a very vocal polygamist.  The evidence weighs pretty heavily towards Helen and Joseph not having sex.  There isn't any evidence towards them having sex and a ton of evidence away from them having sex.

i dont know if you have children or not, but is there any proof anywhere you and your spouse had sex? Proof that I can look up? Did you testify of it, write an article, tell all your friends? Etc... There isnt any proof laying around I had sex before having children but i had a few episodes and that was before I was even married. Just because there is no "evidence" or statement that doesn't mean a thing. No  one runs around esp back then making a brag about having sex with their secret husband who is married to ten other women. The very purpose of polygamy is to have children so sex is going to be involved ..whether they had kids or not.

[Notatbm]

On 10/29/2026 at 11:30 AM, smac97 said:

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any.  Can you help in this regard?

In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this?  If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence.

My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death.

They do?  Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s?

Possibly, yes.

Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship.

See also here:

I dont have any. They were sealed as husband and wife. According to LDS doctrine it wouldf have been ok to have sex right?? It def was permissible so why does everyone fall all over themselves trying to prove he didnt? He is supposed to...

On 10/29/2026 at 11:30 AM, smac97 said:

 

Possibly, yes.

Not sure what you mean here.

I think this is incorrect.  See here.  Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.  Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation.  Do you have contrary evidence?  That Joseph and Emma were never sealed?

Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Yea she is a "Victim." I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls,

I am reiterating my request for evidence of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen.

On a somewhat related note, my wife is a great-great granddaughter of John D. Lee.  Brigham Young adopted Lee on January 25, 1846, when Brigham was 44 years old and Lee was 33.  That's only an 11-year difference, and both men were well into adulthood, and Lee's father was still alive (he died in 1850), and Lee did not legally take on his "adoptive" father's surname.  So that seems pretty strange, particularly if this point is being presented in a decontextualized way.

Some of the weirdness goes away when more context is provided.  Both Young and Lee were Latter-day Saints.  In the 1840s (especially in Nauvoo), some Church members were sealed to other members—often leaders—in a spiritual father-son relationship. The idea was to create an unbroken chain of sealing back to Adam and to link people into the priesthood network of the kingdom. Brigham Young himself was sealed to Joseph Smith; he in turn had dozens of men (reports commonly put the number around 38) sealed to him as adopted sons in early 1846. John D. Lee was one of them—he later described himself as Young’s second adopted son.

Lee was already a loyal, active member (missionary, Council of Fifty clerk, etc.). The sealing formalized a spiritual and practical bond: Lee was to look to Young’s temporal interests, and Young was to secure Lee’s spiritual welfare as an heir in the family. Lee sometimes signed his name in ways that reflected the relationship and referred to himself as Young’s adopted son for years afterward.

The practice was later discontinued as the Church’s understanding of sealings developed (especially after temples became available and proxy work for biological ancestors expanded). It was never a conventional adoption meant to raise a minor; Lee was an adult convert and leader at the time.

So, contexts matters.  It helps us understand a facially strange circumstance.  It does not fully resolve the weirdness, it just mitigates it.  The Church was, after all, still very much in its formative stages, and I think some practices need to be viewed through that lens.

Which brings us to the marriage of Helen Mar Kimball to Joseph Smith, Jr., the examination of which may benefit by comparing and contrasting it with the Young-Lee adoption item.  Here's what I think:

Both practices were irregular by 19th-century (and modern) social norms, yet were motivated by the same emerging Latter-day Saint theology of sealing: the creation of eternal familial bonds that linked people into a priesthood network extending back to Adam, independent of ordinary biological or legal relationships.

In the Law of Adoption, adult men (including John D. Lee) were sealed to Brigham Young as spiritual sons. The relationship was understood as religious and dynastic—Lee was to advance Young’s temporal interests while receiving spiritual inheritance—rather than a conventional parent-child arrangement. It was performed in the Nauvoo Temple period as part of the broader effort to organize the Saints into sealed “families” of the kingdom.

Joseph Smith’s sealing to Helen Mar Kimball (age 14 in 1843) operated under the same sealing logic, applied to plural marriage. Contemporary and later accounts from Helen herself and others frame it primarily as a dynastic or protective sealing that connected her family to the prophet, not as an ordinary marriage. Historians across perspectives note the absence of contemporary evidence of consummation; many treat it as consistent with other early sealings that created eternal links without requiring (or, in the case of a 14-year-old, plausibly involving) a sexual relationship. Like the adoptions, it was justified by the theological claim that such sealings secured place and protection in the afterlife and bound families together beyond death.

The analogy is therefore structural: both were non-standard sealings that created spiritual kinship for religious ends, performed by prophetic authority, and later discontinued or reframed as the Church’s understanding of sealing developed. The differences are also clear—one was a same-sex, adult-to-adult priesthood adoption; the other involved a minor female under the practice of plural marriage (albeit with her parents' consent (it was Heber's idea, actually)—but both reflect the same mid-1840s impulse to organize eternal relationships through temple ordinances rather than through ordinary civil or biological norms.

What are your thoughts about this?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Does the doc say her name at all?

No.  That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference.

If you have evidence of an alternative and superior inference, I'm happy to consider it.

19 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

From what I understand is she was not sealed to Joseph....For sure not before 22 other women were we do know that is pretty much settled. After the 22 initial wives... possibly. 

Okay.  What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Quote

I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship.

I dont have any.

• "Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her."
• "You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her."
• "I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls..."
• "Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them."
• "Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them."
• "Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course"

Do you intend to retract or amend any of these statements?

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

They were sealed as husband and wife.

Nobody disputes that.

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

According to LDS doctrine it wouldf have been ok to have sex right??

If the "marriage" was dynastic, then perhaps not.

10 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

It def was permissible so why does everyone fall all over themselves trying to prove he didnt? He is supposed to...

We are going with the evidence.  I encourage you to do the same.

I see you are pretty invested in this issue.  Your various statements above, and your comparisons between Joseph and Warren Jeffs, are likely coming from a place of disgust and anger, so much so that you are seeking to say inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet.  You clearly are not saying these things to persuade, am I right about that?  If so, what is the intended purpose of these various statements?  And given that you now admit you have no evidence to support your factual averments, why are you presenting them as factual?

Thanks,

-smac

[Notatbm]

On 10/29/2026 at 11:30 AM, smac97 said:

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her.

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any.  Can you help in this regard?
They were married as husband and wife. Totally justified in having sex and also, who would go around bragging about it or making statements. He was hiding all his marriages from Emma. That right there is not only scandalous but indicative of horrible behavior. If it was so honorable to have a bunch of wives (even little girls) why not be open about it??? Probably because it was not only illegal, but he was having sex with them which is.... Adultery on his part and probably on the part of some of the women if they were married to other men at the time.

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

Why not, she was his wife. 

In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this?  If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence.
What do you write in your journal about your sex life? Probably nothing and if you did you wouldnt share it here would you. Of course there is no evidence. The only "Evidence" anyone needs is a marriage. It is an expectation in marriage. I dont know why some are so hell bent on proving Joseph didnt have sex with some of his wives and not others. The dosctine is lieterally about sex among other things... raising up seed. If he wasnt trying to procreate with each of these wives he was disobeying the lord apparently.

My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death.

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well.

They do?  Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s?

Yea I they place Joseph Smith in the modern era why not apply the modern era laws? Oh... yea because he would be in preison and looked at no differently than warren Jeffs who still has many of his brides dfending him just like Joseph did. 

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old

Possibly, yes.

 

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

and having sex with her,

Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship.

They were married- that is all the proof needed. What proof is there of your fellow ward members having sex?? Esp the ones who have not had children yet? Answer: None unless they are going around talking about it, but everyone knows there is like a 99.99% chance they are.

 

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

Politically, he would not survive with all the shenanigans he was up to.

Not sure what you mean here.
Look at the crap the AZ Gov candidate lamb is involved in. It isnt polygamy but do you think for a minute running for president (which Joseph did apparently) and everyone knew he had a pile of wives, was detroying printing presses etc he would survive in the current political climate?? He didnt even survive it in his day both figuratively and literally.

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma.

I think this is incorrect.  See here.  Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843.  Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation.  Do you have contrary evidence?  That Joseph and Emma were never sealed?

I have not ever seen any proof with her name on anything resembling a sealing. There might be something out there, but my understanding is it isnt settled science so to speak.

  On 10/29/2026 at 7:13 AM, Notatbm said:

Praise to the man!

Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion.

JS is worthy of being mocked. Thats what you get when you marry women behind your wife's back.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph?

For all your complaining about logical fallacies, you should know better than to ask this question.

[Notatbm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.  That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference.

If you have evidence of an alternative and superior inference, I'm happy to consider it.

Okay.  What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph?

"That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference." 
Is her name written there somewhere? I also responded to this same question you asked. We know that until he was married to 22 women other than Emma, JS and Emma were not sealed together. After...like you say, there is a reasoned inference, but again, she isnt named from what I understand. Sooo for about half of the time he was practicing polygamy, he chose to not be sealed to Emma and she was apparently unaware of the whole thing...apparently

Edited Friday at 08:44 PM by Notatbm

[Notatbm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

• "Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her."
• "You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her."
• "I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls..."
• "Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them."
• "Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them."
• "Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course"

Do you intend to retract or amend any of these statements?

Am I required to by forum rules? Then no

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nobody disputes that.

If the "marriage" was dynastic, then perhaps not.

We are going with the evidence.  I encourage you to do the same.

I see you are pretty invested in this issue. Your various statements above, and your comparisons between Joseph and Warren Jeffs, are likely coming from a place of disgust and anger, so much so that you are seeking to say inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet.  You clearly are not saying these things to persuade, am I right about that?  If so, what is the intended purpose of these various statements?  And given that you now admit you have no evidence to support your factual averments, why are you presenting them as factual?

I see you are pretty invested as well judging by the massive walls of text you create for every response.

Ok...you go with the evidence then. I know you want to treat everything as a criminal trial and trot out huge volumes of data, references and whatever else you can find, but many (to include myself) are satisfied with Occam's Razor. Do what you do and I'll do what I do. it isnt a complicated issue. Marriage = Sex.

"inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet."
OK so what? Im a member of the church as well. I am entitled to an opinion. People can choose whether they want to be offended or not. I think some prophet somewhere described that behavior as a weakness or some such thing. I dont need to take orders from some random stranger on the internet. If you dont enjoy discussions with me then dont respond...its easy.
 

[Tacenda]

I guess I'm clueless sometimes, when I looked up the progressive meaning in politics, this is what it said.

Do you mind sharing what you don't like in these descriptions? Also, when I posted "progressive", to me Joseph Smith seemed progressive as he changed things as far as religious things. So more a different way of being progressive. When I answered the topic post, in my mind I skipped the politically speaking part of the topic and when I put in the following description after I looked it up I think I may have not totally understood it this way. Because in my mind Joseph and Jesus were both different in the religious aspect from the norm. My bad. But please do not peg abortion as murder. There are certain times for abortion, and now in this climate when a woman has miscarried and needs the deceased baby out of her or she may bleed out and die or it may cause her to not have any more children because of the damage. Do you think she shouldn't have an abortion? Because if you do, then you are nonsensical. And women are dying because of the reversal of Roe vs. Wade.

In politics, progressivism is a political philosophy and movement that supports social, economic, and systemic reform through active government intervention. [1, 2]

 

Core Beliefs and Goals

• Social and Economic Equality: Progressives advocate for policies that reduce wealth gaps, strengthen worker protections, and protect marginalized groups.

• Active Government Role: Unlike ideologies that favor deregulation or a smaller state, progressivism holds that government should be used as a tool to solve social problems, regulate corporate power, and provide public goods (such as health care, education, and environmental protection).

• Systemic Transformation: Progressives generally push for bolder, faster structural change to address root causes of inequality rather than relying on incremental moderation. Key platform priorities often include single-payer health care (like Medicare for All), aggressive action on climate change, tax reform on high earners and corporations, and criminal justice reform. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

 

History

• The Progressive Era (1890s–1920s): The movement took root in the United States during the Industrial Revolution as a reaction against corporate monopolies, harsh labor conditions, political corruption, and the Gilded Age. Figures like President Theodore Roosevelt (who formed the Bull Moose / Progressive Party in 1912) and Robert La Follette pushed for trust-busting, women’s suffrage, and direct democracy measures like referendums.

• The New Deal and Beyond: The philosophy expanded mid-century through Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal programs and later saw major revivals during the civil rights movements and modern-day political alignments. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

 

Progressivism vs. Liberalism

While often used interchangeably or grouped closely together, progressivism and traditional liberalism have distinct nuances: [1]

• Liberalism traditionally emphasizes individual rights, constitutional governance, and free-market capitalism tempered by social safety nets.

• Progressivism often places a sharper focus on challenging concentrated corporate power, reducing systemic economic inequality, and demanding deeper structural or institutional changes. [1, 2, 3]

You can read more about current policy aims on the Congressional Progressive Caucus platform or explore definitions via Merriam-Webster Dictionary and historical context on BBC News. [1, 2, 3]

 

EDIT TO ADD: I liken this to what I believe progressiveness is:

IOW PROGRESS!!!

 

 

Edited Saturday at 03:25 AM by Tacenda

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph?

For all your complaining about logical fallacies, you should know better than to ask this question.

Could you elaborate?  @Notatbm is making an affirmative declaration, that Joseph was not sealed to Emma.  I am asking him to substantiate that claim.

The Burden of Proof Principle

The Claimant Bears the Burden: In logic and debate, the person making a positive or negative assertion is responsible for providing the evidence to support it.

The Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): It does become a fallacy if someone asserts a claim and then demands that their opponent prove the claim is false to show it is true (e.g., "You can't prove Joseph Smith was never sealed to Emma, therefore he wasn't"). Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance.

The Specific Example (Joseph Smith and Emma Smith)

The Historical Fact: Historical records—including entries in Joseph Smith's journals and documents housed in The Joseph Smith Papers—show that Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith were sealed for eternity on May 28, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois.

The Assertion: If someone asserts the negative claim ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma"), they are the ones who must provide the evidence. Asking them to back up their assertion is a valid challenge to their claim, not a logical fallacy. However, asking them to prove a negative can be practically difficult or impossible because proving the non-existence of a historical event relies on complete historical records. 

Here, however, we have some historical and circumstantial evidence that Joseph was sealed to Emma.  NotaTBM is, of course, free to assert the opposite, but I think he needs to present some evidence for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Quote

 

No.  That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference.

If you have evidence of an alternative and superior inference, I'm happy to consider it.

Okay.  What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph?

 

"That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference." 
Is her name written there somewhere?

Again, no.  Are you saying the journal entry cannot form the basis for the reasoned inference?  If so, could you elaborate?

33 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I also responded to this same question you asked. We know that until he was married to 22 women other than Emma, JS and Emma were not sealed together.

But that was not your original assertion.  You said: "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma."  Are you now retracting that claim?  Or just qualifying it ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma {until after he had been sealed to several other women})?

33 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

After...like you say, there is a reasoned inference, but again, she isnt named from what I understand. Sooo for about half of the time he was practicing polygamy, he chose to not be sealed to Emma and she was apparently unaware of the whole thing...apparently

So do you accept and agree with the reasoned inference, or not?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Quote

• "Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her."
• "You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her."
• "I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls..."
• "Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them."
• "Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them."
• "Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course"

Do you intend to retract or amend any of these statements?

Am I required to by forum rules?  Then no

I think you are required by thee forum rules, see here:

Quote

Call for reference….it is a board rule enforced by mods (you can be banned from a thread at least if you ignore it) that if you make a statement of fact without documentation, at least a link, and someone wants more information or is challenging the accuracy of your statement, they can issue a CFR.  You either need to provide the info or withdraw the claim or rewrite it as your opinion or personal experience, which then gives it a different type of value in arguments.  Just pointing to a website and telling someone to read it is not enough, it needs to go directly to the info or be identified so the person can track it down (if offline, name of source, location and a quote of the material so people can see if your interpretation is correct).  The board had a lot of academic and academically inclined at the beginning and still has quite a few who like to research and others who want to have substantive conversations and it has added, imo, a more meaningful, informative quality to conversations that you can’t find many other places.  I love it as I like to often do additional research and it is much easier than trying to find info on a unreferenced claim.

It certainly is a strong expectation on the board.

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I see you are pretty invested as well judging by the massive walls of text you create for every response.

I am invested in being a Latter-day Saint, yes.  I have strong beliefs about the Restored Gospel.  I come to this board to vet and test what I believe and why, and to listen to divergent points of view.

I am interested in your point of view, for example, hence my questions posed to you.  You are making repeated and various factual assertions of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen, while at the same time admitting that you have no evidence for those claims.   

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

Ok...you go with the evidence then.

Yes, as well as personal and prophetic revelation and my own reasoning.

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I know you want to treat everything as a criminal trial and trot out huge volumes of data, references and whatever else you can find, but many (to include myself) are satisfied with Occam's Razor. Do what you do and I'll do what I do. it isnt a complicated issue. Marriage = Sex.

The evidence relative to the relationship between Joseph and Helen merits real attention.  And it's a serious topic, so I would hope it is addressed with decorum and reasoning and civility.

The evidence against a sexual relationship is largely negative—there is no contemporary record of consummation—and is reinforced by Helen’s own later accounts.

• No contemporary source (letters, diaries, affidavits from the 1840s) describes sexual relations. The sealing is documented as a religious ordinance arranged by Helen’s parents (especially her father, Heber C. Kimball) to create a dynastic link.
• Helen’s own writings, composed decades later, frame the event as a sealing she accepted at her father’s request for eternal family purposes. She does not describe cohabitation or a sexual marriage; her language emphasizes the spiritual and familial character of the ordinance and the difficulty of understanding it at age 14.
• There is no record of pregnancy, childbirth, or other physical evidence that would indicate consummation.
• The arrangement fits the same mid-1840s sealing logic seen in the Law of Adoption (adult men sealed to leaders for spiritual kinship). In that context, many early plural sealings functioned as eternal bonds without requiring or documenting ordinary marital cohabitation, particularly where the woman was very young.
• Later critics and some historians have inferred a sexual relationship from the fact of the sealing itself and from the broader practice of plural marriage, but that inference rests on assumption rather than direct evidence specific to Helen.

In short, the historical record supports a parent-initiated dynastic sealing; it does not contain positive evidence of a sexual relationship.

For my part, applying Occam's Razor to the foregoing scenario points away from a sexual relationship, and towards what was seen at the time as a dynastic one.

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

"inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet."
OK so what? Im a member of the church as well. I am entitled to an opinion.

I did not know you were a member of the Church, and I fully support your right to both have an opinion and express it.

Some come here to socialize.  I don't.  I come here to discuss and debate and learn and listen.

Your comments in this thread appear calculated not to education or inform, but rather to incite offense and anger.  While you are certainly at liberty to do that (there is a limit re: "trolling"), I hope you will set aside the vitriol and have a conversation about the evidence.  If you are right in your assessment of Joseph Smith, I want to know that.

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

People can choose whether they want to be offended or not. I think some prophet somewhere described that behavior as a weakness or some such thing. I dont need to take orders from some random stranger on the internet. If you dont enjoy discussions with me then dont respond...its easy.

Your comments appear to be calculated to give offense, but I haven't taken offense.

I also have not given you any "orders."  Just requests, framed with intentions toward civility and inquiry about your perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  @Notatbm is making an affirmative declaration, that Joseph was not sealed to Emma.  I am asking him to substantiate that claim.

The Burden of Proof Principle

The Claimant Bears the Burden: In logic and debate, the person making a positive or negative assertion is responsible for providing the evidence to support it.

 

The Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): It does become a fallacy if someone asserts a claim and then demands that their opponent prove the claim is false to show it is true (e.g., "You can't prove Joseph Smith was never sealed to Emma, therefore he wasn't"). Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance.

 

 

 

The Specific Example (Joseph Smith and Emma Smith)

 

The Historical Fact: Historical records—including entries in Joseph Smith's journals and documents housed in The Joseph Smith Papers—show that Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith were sealed for eternity on May 28, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois.

 

The Assertion: If someone asserts the negative claim ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma"), they are the ones who must provide the evidence. Asking them to back up their assertion is a valid challenge to their claim, not a logical fallacy. However, asking them to prove a negative can be practically difficult or impossible because proving the non-existence of a historical event relies on complete historical records. 

Here, however, we have some historical and circumstantial evidence that Joseph was sealed to Emma.  NotaTBM is, of course, free to assert the opposite, but I think he needs to present some evidence for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

You’re doing it backwards. They don’t need to substantiate their claim. They need to refute the extant evidence that indicates Joseph and Emma were sealed or show how it is flawed or inaccurate or how other things show it is unlikely to be accurate.

All that being said I don’t think there is a good case for the sealing not happening.

[ttribe]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  @Notatbm is making an affirmative declaration, that Joseph was not sealed to Emma.  I am asking him to substantiate that claim.

The Burden of Proof Principle

The Claimant Bears the Burden: In logic and debate, the person making a positive or negative assertion is responsible for providing the evidence to support it.

 

The Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): It does become a fallacy if someone asserts a claim and then demands that their opponent prove the claim is false to show it is true (e.g., "You can't prove Joseph Smith was never sealed to Emma, therefore he wasn't"). Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance.

 

 

 

The Specific Example (Joseph Smith and Emma Smith)

 

The Historical Fact: Historical records—including entries in Joseph Smith's journals and documents housed in The Joseph Smith Papers—show that Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith were sealed for eternity on May 28, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois.

 

The Assertion: If someone asserts the negative claim ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma"), they are the ones who must provide the evidence. Asking them to back up their assertion is a valid challenge to their claim, not a logical fallacy. However, asking them to prove a negative can be practically difficult or impossible because proving the non-existence of a historical event relies on complete historical records. 

Here, however, we have some historical and circumstantial evidence that Joseph was sealed to Emma.  NotaTBM is, of course, free to assert the opposite, but I think he needs to present some evidence for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

One - I think NotaTBM is barking up the wrong tree. Based on my recollection (especially from the JSP and In Sacred Loneliness) I really don't think there's any question Joseph was sealed to Emma, but I do also recall it was after he had already been sealed to a number of other women.

Two - Your question, as stated, looks a lot like the simple fallacious demand to prove a negative.